All categories

3 years ago

6. Name the polygon. Write whether it is regular or not regular

Mathematics

1 answer:

slamgirl [31]3 years ago

7 0

Answer:

this shape is a pentagon. this is a regular shape because all the sides are even and all the angles on the inside are also even.

Step-by-step explanation:

pls mark brainliest!

You might be interested in

The product of a number and 4 increased by 16 is -2

Thepotemich [5.8K]

This is some simple Algebra
So it's 4x+16=-2
We subtract 16 from both sides
4x=-18
Sivide both sides by 4
X=-4.5
If you need more of an explanation I am happy to elaborate

5 0

3 years ago

Can 15x-10 be factored

Anna [14]

Yes because removing the common factor is important. There are a few steps, then you can factor by regrouping. Hope this helps.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Halp mi now. pls pls plsp lls plsp pls

Thepotemich [5.8K]

Answer:

-r+5<-3

Step-by-step explanation:

plug in 19 to the equation inequality

7 0

2 years ago

For which system of equations is (5, 3) the solution? A. 3x – 2y = 9 3x + 2y = 14 B. x – y = –2 4x – 3y = 11 C. –2x – y = –13 x

Alla [95]

The correct answer is:

D) $\left \{ {{2x-y=7} \atop {2x+7y=31}} \right.$ .

Explanation:

We solve each system to find the correct answer.

For A:
$\left \{ {{3x-2y=9} \atop {3x+2y=14}} \right.$

Since we have the coefficients of both variables the same, we will use elimination to solve this.

Since the coefficients of y are -2 and 2, we can add the equations to solve, since -2+2=0 and cancels the y variable:
$\left \{ {{3x-2y=9} \atop {+(3x+2y=14)}} \right. 
\\
\\6x=23$

Next we divide both sides by 6:
6x/6 = 23/6
x = 23/6

This is not the x-coordinate of the answer we are looking for, so A is not correct.

For B:
$\left \{ {{x-y=-2} \atop {4x-3y=11}} \right.$

For this equation, it will be easier to isolate a variable and use substitution, since the coefficient of both x and y in the first equation is 1:
x-y=-2

Add y to both sides:
x-y+y=-2+y
x=-2+y

We now substitute this in place of x in the second equation:
4x-3y=11
4(-2+y)-3y=11

Using the distributive property, we have:
4(-2)+4(y)-3y=11
-8+4y-3y=11

Combining like terms, we have:
-8+y=11

Add 8 to each side:
-8+y+8=11+8
y=19

This is not the y-coordinate of the answer we're looking for, so B is not correct.

For C:
Since the coefficient of x in the second equation is 1, we will use substitution again.

x+2y=-11

To isolate x, subtract 2y from each side:
x+2y-2y=-11-2y
x=-11-2y

Now substitute this in place of x in the first equation:
-2x-y=-13
-2(-11-2y)-y=-13

Using the distributive property, we have:
-2(-11)-2(-2y)-y=-13
22+4y-y=-13

Combining like terms:
22+3y=-13

Subtract 22 from each side:
22+3y-22=-13-22
3y=-35

Divide both sides by 3:
3y/3 = -35/3
y = -35/3

This is not the y-coordinate of the answer we're looking for, so C is not correct.

For D:
Since the coefficients of x are the same in each equation, we will use elimination. We have 2x in each equation; to eliminate this, we will subtract, since 2x-2x=0:

$\left \{ {{2x-y=7} \atop {-(2x+7y=31)}} \right. 
\\
\\-8y=-24$

Divide both sides by -8:
-8y/-8 = -24/-8
y=3

The y-coordinate is correct; next we check the x-coordinate Substitute the value for y into the first equation:
2x-y=7
2x-3=7

Add 3 to each side:
2x-3+3=7+3
2x=10

Divide each side by 2:
2x/2=10/2
x=5

This gives us the x- and y-coordinate we need, so D is the correct answer.

7 0

3 years ago

Consider the following proposed proof by contradiction that for all positive integers n, 3n > 2.

laila [671]

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."

7 0

3 years ago