This question is in reverse (in two ways):
<span>1. The definition of an additive inverse of a number is precisely that which, when added to the number, will give a sum of zero. </span>
<span>The real problem, in certain fields, is usually to show that for all numbers in that field, there exists an additive inverse. </span>
<span>Therefore, if you tell me that you have a number, and its additive inverse, and you plan to add them together, then I can tell you in advance that the sum MUST be zero. </span>
<span>2. In your question, you use the word "difference", which does not work (unless the number is zero - 0 is an integer AND a rational number, and its additive inverse is -0 which is the same as 0 - the difference would be 0 - -0 = 0). </span>
<span>For example, given the number 3, and its additive inverse -3, if you add them, you get zero: </span>
<span>3 + (-3) = 0 </span>
<span>However, their "difference" will be 6 (or -6, depending which way you do the difference): </span>
<span>3 - (-3) = 6 </span>
<span>-3 - 3 = -6 </span>
<span>(because -3 is a number in the integers, then it has an additive inverse, also in the integers, of +3). </span>
<span>--- </span>
<span>A rational number is simply a number that can be expressed as the "ratio" of two integers. For example, the number 4/7 is the ratio of "four to seven". </span>
<span>It can be written as an endless decimal expansion </span>
<span>0.571428571428571428....(forever), but that does not change its nature, because it CAN be written as a ratio, it is "rational". </span>
<span>Integers are rational numbers as well (because you can always write 3/1, the ratio of 3 to 1, to express the integer we call "3") </span>
<span>The additive inverse of a rational number, written as a ratio, is found by simply flipping the sign of the numerator (top) </span>
<span>The additive inverse of 4/7 is -4/7 </span>
<span>and if you ADD those two numbers together, you get zero (as per the definition of "additive inverse") </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>If you need to "prove" it, you begin by the existence of additive inverses in the integers. </span>
<span>ALL integers each have an additive inverse. </span>
<span>For example, the additive inverse of 4 is -4 </span>
<span>Next, show that this (in the integers) can be applied to the rationals in this manner: </span>
<span>(4/7) + (-4/7) = ? </span>
<span>common denominator, therefore you can factor out the denominator: </span>
<span>(4 + -4)/7 = ? </span>
<span>Inside the bracket is the sum of an integer with its additive inverse, therefore the sum is zero </span>
<span>(0)/7 = 0/7 = 0 </span>
<span>Since this is true for ALL integers, then it must also be true for ALL rational numbers.</span>
Answer:
the first one is 3.4
Step-by-step explanation:
how this helps
The break-even point for the graph is at 11 units.
Step-by-step explanation:
Break-even point refers to the point on the graph where either of the parameters of the graph intercepts each other. The corresponding location of the position where the intersection occurs gives the break-even point.
In the graph annual cost is plotted in green on the Y axis, while the sales are plotted on x-axis in red.
When we observe the graph carefully, we find that two-line intercepts. When the point at which interception occurs is extended on the x-axis, the point is 11 units, which gives us the break-even units.
Hence the point is 11 units.
Answer:
(x+5, y-3)
Step-by-step explanation:
I would say this because when a plane is translated up it would be positive and when it's translated to the left it would be negative,
Hi!
To answer this, first we have to find how much 1 notebook costs. We can do this by dividing:
Cost/amount = ?
Or in this case
5.25/5 = 1.5
Now we have to find how much 3 notebooks cost. We can do this by multiplying:
Cost of one x amount = ?
Or in this case
1.5 x 3 = 3.15
The answer is 3.15
Hope this helps! :)
