Each time they assume the sum<span> is </span>rational<span>; however, upon rearranging the terms of their equation, they get a contradiction (that an </span>irrational number<span> is equal to a </span>rational number<span>). Since the assumption that the </span>sum of a rational<span> and </span>irrational number<span> is </span>rational<span>leads to a contradiction, the </span>sum<span> must be </span>irrational<span>.</span>
Answer:
I will assume that the end of the top section if it were cut at 0 degrees would be cut at right angles to the length of the section.
Joining a top section with a 37 degree end angle to a side piece with a 50 degree end angle will result in the length of the side piece being at an angle of
37 + 50 = 87 degrees to each other.
The same will be true for the other side.
If the sides were parallel, then going up one side, across the top and then down the other side will result in a change of direction of 180 degrees. However, in this frame the direction turns 87 degrees at the first top corner and another 87 degrees at the second top corner. This is a total of
87 + 87 = 174 degrees instead of 180 degrees.
The two sides diverge at an angle of
180 - 174 = 6 degrees from each other as they extend downwards from the top of the frame
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
C=0.14×7,200=1008
Nadia made a total of $1008 last week in commission sales
b). To express the total amount she made in 2011, we derive the formula below;
Total amount (2011)=Average weekly commission× number of weeks in 2011
where;
Average weekly commission=$1008
number of weeks in 2011=52
replacing;
Total amount (2011)=(1008×52)=52,416
The total amount Nadia in commission in 2011=$52,416
Answer: It would be 4b+44
Step-by-step explanation:
This is the distributive property! so a(b+c)=ab+ac
In this case–4b+44!
