There are many reasons one may want to simplify, rearranging to find specific values - or maybe just making it simpler
Well, let's do some examples:
y(x(3+2)) +2 = -2y +2 <span>< I just made this one up, it looks really complicated right now, none the less it can be simplified easily
</span>y(3x+2x) + 2 = - 2y +2
3xy + 2xy + 2 = -2y +2
5xy + 2 = -2y +2 <-- the +2's dissapear because they cancel out
5xy = -2y
<span>And there we have it, that long expression has been simplified to something really simple.
</span>
Another example:
3(4(x+3(2 +z)) - 5)= 3y <span><- you can start where ever, I like starting in the middle
</span>3 * (4 * (x + 3*(2 + z)) - 5 ) = 3y <span><- here it is spaced out, we get a much better view
</span><span>3 * (4 * (x + 6 + 3z) - 5 ) = 3y</span>
3 * (4x + 24 + 12z - 5) = 3y <- divide both sides by 3 ..
4x + 24 + 12z - 5 = y <- much better
<span>
</span>Note: Simplify means solving to a degree, but you can't solve it because it has unknowns
The feasible region is the region that comes from intersecting the different regions described by the equations that constrain the problem.
Let's take a look:
From this, we can conclude that the vertices of the feasible region are:
Answer:
its the second one 3/8
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
It's a.
Step-by-step explanation:
(a - 2b)^2 + 8ab
= a^2 - 4ab + 4b^2 + 8ab
= a^2 + 4ab + 4b^2.
((a + 2b)^2 = a^2 + 4ab + 4b^2.
Answer:
The statement is FALSE
Step by Step explanation:
<em>This is a true or false statement. so, basically the given statement:</em>
A key planning principle is that plans are most coherent when developed by a single emergency management professional and then presented to the response community for approval.
<u>The statement is FALSE</u>
Because, A key principle of the plan is that it is adaptive, not only in the knowledge that it contains but also in the ability to update priorities as new issues arise or priorities emerge which means that only developed by a single emergency management professional is not feasible.
