To find out how big of a TV Don can mount on his wall and still have at least 24 1/2 inches left on both sides, we just need to subtract the amount of space Don wants to save from the amount that Don has total.
Also, decimals are much easier to work with in these types of problems than fractions, so we will convert the fractions to decimals.
88 3/4 = 88.75
24 1/2 = 24.5
Since Don wants to save 24.5 inches on both sides, we will need to multiply 24.5 by 2 before continuing.
24.5 * 2 = 49
Then, we just need to subtract the amount of length he wants to save by the total amount he has.
88.75 - 49 = 39.75
39.75 in fraction form would be 39 3/4
The largest TV Don can fit on his wall while saving the amount he wants to save on both sides for his speakers is 39 3/4 inches. That means he can get either Television A, B, or C.
Hope that helped =)
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
<u>6-digit palindrome is the number n the form of:</u>
<u>This is divisible by 11 by default as the sum of the digits in odd placed is same as sum of the number in even places (remember the divisibility rule by 11):</u>
Now, in order to be divisible by 99, the number must be divisible by 11 and 9.
According to divisibility rule by 9 the sum of all digits must be divisible by 9. <u>You can see In our case we need to have (the minimum):</u>
<u>The smallest number we could get is when x is minimum, y is minimum, so:</u>
<u>The number we get is:</u>
<u>Proof:</u>
Answer:
someone help me with this ASAp
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
3) C
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is asking which pair is equal. Work through each problem to solve.
8(2r) and 10r
16r ≠ 10r
6r + 3 and 9r
6r + 3 ≠ 9r
9(3r - 4) and 27r - 36
27r - 36 = 27r - 36
r + r + r + r + r and r⁵
5r ≠ r⁵
Step-by-step explanation:
the option with the isoceles triangles can NOT be just of that proof, because nowhere is it defined or proven that there is or are isoceles triangles involved. even though the picture looks like it, but that does not mean anything for the formal proof.
actually, this proof is the same (and is also valid) for non-isoceles triangles.
