Answer:
A.
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
hi the answer would be x= -1 14/15
Answer:
16, 17, 18
Step-by-step explanation:
The middle of three consecutive integers is their average value. The average of three integers is their sum (51) divided by the number of them (3).
51/3 = 17 . . . . the middle of the three integers.
The integers are 16, 17, 18.
_____
Maybe you're thinking an equation is necessary. The reasoning about numbers is sufficient to solve the problem, so no equation is necessary.
This sort of problem is often solved by letting the variable represent the smallest integer. If the variable is x, then the three integers are ...
x, x+1, x+2
and their sum is ...
(x) +(x+1) +(x+2) = 51
This gives you a 2-step equation:
3x +3 = 51
x+1 = 17 . . . . . divide by 3, because we can
x = 16 . . . . . . . subtract 1; integers are 16, 17, 18
__
Another way to solve this problem is the way we did it in words above. Let the variable represent the middle integer. Then the three integers are ...
x-1, x, x+1
and their sum is ...
(x-1) +(x) +(x+1) = 51
This gives you a 1-step equation:
3x = 51
x = 17 . . . . . . . . divide by 3; integers are 16, 17, 18
Answer:
<u>1. 4/13 = 20/65
</u>
<u>2. 4/20 = 13/65 </u>
<u>3. 5/10 = 23/46</u>
<u>4. 5/10 = 32/64
</u>
<u>5. 5/23 = 10/46
</u>
<u>6. 5/32 = 10/64</u>
Step-by-step explanation:
We can make the following six equivalent ratios using the digits from 0 to 6 only once:
1. 4/13 = 20/65 (We multiply 4 and 13 by 5 to get the second equivalent ratio)
2. 4/20 = 13/65 (We divide the first ratio by 4 and the second by 13 and we get 1/5 on both ratios)
3. 5/10 = 23/46 (We divide the first ratio by 5 and the second by 23 and we get 1/2 on both ratios)
4. 5/10 = 32/64
(We divide the first ratio by 5 and the second by 32 and we get 1/2 on both ratios)
5. 5/23 = 10/46
(We multiply 5 and 23 by 2 to get the second equivalent ratio)
6. 5/32 = 10/64 (We multiply 5 and 32 by 2 to get the second equivalent ratio)
Answer:
not equivalent
equivalent
not equivalent
Step-by-step explanation:
25 is by itself already 5²
therefore

when we divide one time by 5, we simply take away 1 from the power making it

the other options are wrong

would be right, if we have

but we don't.
and

would even square

and then divide by 25. no, the original excision is nothing like that.