Answer:
its 2/6ths its only multiplied by 2
Step-by-step explanation:
I got 5,300. I’m not sure if that’s what you meant for “d”.
Answer:
- Benito's error was using the equal sign (=) instead of the congruency symbol (≅).
Explanation:
Benito's error was using the equal sign (=) instead of the congruency symbol (≅).
The congruency symbol (≅) means that the elements (segments, angles or figures in general) have the same measure, i.e. they have equal lengths for the segments or equal measure for the angles.
For instance, it is an error saying that the segment AB is equal to the segment BC because, as you clearly see in the picture, they are not same; they have the same length but they are joining different points, that makes them different in essence, although they have the same length. They would be equal only if they are the same figure.
In mathematics, you must not say that two different segments or two different angles are equal but they are congruent, which means that their lengths are equal. The use of equal is reserved for numbers and variables, not for figures like segment, points, angles, polygons.
____________________________________
Vector d can be represented as :
Vector c can be represented as :
we have to create vector d from vector c
So, let's assume a vector x, such that sum of vector x and vector c equals to vector d
Henceforth, in order to get vector d, we need to add (-6i - 6j) in vector c
Answered by : ❝ AǫᴜᴀWɪᴢ ❞
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."
