<span>1/6 + 3/8
= 4/24 + 9/24
= 13/24
answer
</span><span>D. 13/24</span>
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
SIDE OF THE SQUARE = 6 cm = DIAMETER OF THE CIRCLE.
AREA OF THE CIRCLE = (Pi/4)*6^2 = [(22/7)/4]*36 = 22*9/7 = 28.2857 sqcm
or
First, find the side length of the square. (Find the square root of 36 cm^2, to get 6 cm as the side length of the square).
Second, find the radius of the circle inside the square. The side length of the square is the diameter of the circle. Radius is half of the diameter. So, half of 6 cm is 3 cm; this is the radius of the circle.
Third, find the area of the circle by using the formula, A = pi x radius x radius
so, Area = 3.14 x 3 cm x 3 cm
by calculation we get the area of the circle is 28.26 cm^2
Where pi is a constant of 22/7 or 3.14
30=8+4(z-2)
Distribute 4 through the parentheses
30=8+4z-8
Eliminate the opposites
30=4z
Swap the sides of the equation
4z=30
Divide both sides of the equation by 4
4z÷4=30÷4
Any expression divided by itself equals 1
z=30÷4
or write the division as a fraction
z=30/4
copy the numerator and denominator of the fraction
30=2x3x5
4=2x2
Write the prime factorization of 30
Write the prime factorization of 4
30=2 x3x5
4=2x2
2
Line up the common factors in both lists
Copy the common factors
Since there is only one common factor, the common factor 2 is also the greatest common factor
30÷2/4÷2
2
Divide 30 and 4 by the greatest common factor 2
15/4÷2
Divide the numbers in the numerator
15/2
Divide the numbers in the denominator
15/2
The simplified expression is 15/2
That's it. hope it wasn't too hard to understand?
I think it's C,But I'm not sure
Answer:
The proof contains a simple direct proof, wrapped inside the unnecessary logical packaging of a proof by contradiction framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The proof is rigourous and well written, so we discard the second answer.
This is not a fake proof by contradiction: it does not have any logical fallacies (circular arguments) or additional assumptions, like, for example, the "proof" of "All the horses are the same color". It is factually correct, but it can be rewritten as a direct proof.
A meaningful proof by contradiction depends strongly on the assumption that the statement to prove is false. In this argument, we only this assumption once, thus it is innecessary. Other proofs by contradiction, like the proof of "The square root of 2 is irrational" or Euclid's proof of the infinitude of primes, develop a longer argument based on the new assumption, but this proof doesn't.
To rewrite this without the superfluous framework, erase the parts "Suppose that the statement is false" and "The fact that the statement is true contradicts the assumption that the statement is false. Thus, the assumption that the statement was false must have been false. Thus, the statement is true."
