All categories

2 years ago

-8/9 - (2 1/3) show all your work

Mathematics

1 answer:

Sauron [17]2 years ago

8 0

Answer:

1 8/9 - 1 2/3 = 2/

≅ 0.2222222

Step-by-step explanation:

How do you solve fractions step by step?

Conversion a mixed number 1 8/

to a improper fraction: 1 8/9 = 1 8/

= 1 · 9 + 8/

= 9 + 8/

= 17/

To find a new numerator:

a) Multiply the whole number 1 by the denominator 9. Whole number 1 equally 1 * 9/

= 9/

b) Add the answer from previous step 9 to the numerator 8. New numerator is 9 + 8 = 17

c) Write a previous answer (new numerator 17) over the denominator 9.

One and eight ninths is seventeen ninths

Conversion a mixed number 1 2/

to a improper fraction: 1 2/3 = 1 2/

= 1 · 3 + 2/

= 3 + 2/

= 5/

To find a new numerator:

a) Multiply the whole number 1 by the denominator 3. Whole number 1 equally 1 * 3/

= 3/

b) Add the answer from previous step 3 to the numerator 2. New numerator is 3 + 2 = 5

c) Write a previous answer (new numerator 5) over the denominator 3.

One and two thirds is five thirds

Subtract: 17/

- 5/

= 17/

- 5 · 3/

3 · 3

= 17/

- 15/

= 17 - 15/

= 2/

For adding, subtracting, and comparing fractions, it is suitable to adjust both fractions to a common (equal, identical) denominator. The common denominator you can calculate as the least common multiple of both denominators - LCM(9, 3) = 9. In practice, it is enough to find the common denominator (not necessarily the lowest) by multiplying the denominators: 9 × 3 = 27. In the following intermediate step, it cannot further simplify the fraction result by canceling.

In other words - seventeen ninths minus five thirds = two ninths

You might be interested in

Debbie is borrowing 3 books from her friend who has a collection of 45 books. Which of the following expressions represents the

choli [55]

The order of the 3 books does not matter so its the number of combinations of 3 from 45

b is the correct choice

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Fred is 4 times as old as Nathan and is also 27 years older than Nathan. Let f be Fred's age and let n be Nathan's age.

bazaltina [42]

Answer:

The system of equations is

and

Fred's age is 36 years old and Nathan's age is 9 years old

Step-by-step explanation:

Let

f -----> Fred's age

n ----> Nathan's age

we know that

-----> equation A

----> equation B

equate the equations and solve for n

Find the value of f

therefore

Fred's age is 36 years old and Nathan's age is 9 years old

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

14,494 ten thousand round to

SVETLANKA909090 [29]

"14,494 rounded to the nearest ten-thousands" would be 10,000.

Because the value of the digit before the ten thousands place (4) is less than the value of 5, the digit in the ten-thousands position does not change.

3 0

3 years ago

Calculus piecewise function.

Kipish [7]

Part A

The notation $\lim_{x \to 2^{+}}f(x)$ means that we're approaching x = 2 from the right hand side (aka positive side). This is known as a right hand limit.

So we could start at say x = 2.5 and get closer to 2 by getting to x = 2.4 then to x = 2.3 then 2.2, 2.1, 2.01, 2.001, etc

We don't actually arrive at x = 2 itself. We simply move closer and closer.

Since we're on the positive or right hand side of 2, this means we go with the rule involving x > 2

Therefore f(x) = (x/2) + 1

Plug in x = 2 to find that...

f(x) = (x/2) + 1

f(2) = (2/2) + 1

f(2) = 2

This shows $\lim_{x \to 2^{+}}f(x) = 2$

Then for the left hand limit $\lim_{x \to 2^{-}}f(x)$ , we'll involve x < 2 and we go for the first piece. So,

f(x) = 3-x

f(2) = 3-2

f(2) = 1

Therefore, $\lim_{x \to 2^{-}}f(x) = 1$

===============================================================

Part B

Because $\lim_{x \to 2^{+}}f(x) \ne \lim_{x \to 2^{-}}f(x)$ this means that the limit $\lim_{x \to 2}f(x)$ does not exist.

If you are a visual learner, check out the graph below of the piecewise function. Notice the gap or disconnect at x = 2. This can be thought of as two roads that are disconnected. There's no way for a car to go from one road to the other. Because of this disconnect, the limit doesn't exist at x = 2.

===============================================================

Part C

You'll follow the same type of steps shown in part A.

However, keep in mind that x = 4 is above x = 2, so we'll deal with x > 2 only.

So you'd only involve the second piece f(x) = (x/2) + 1

You should find that f(4) = 3, and that both left and right hand limits equal this value. The left and right hand limits approach the same y value. The limit does exist here. There are no gaps to worry about when x = 4.

===============================================================

Part D

As mentioned earlier, since $\lim_{x \to 4^{+}}f(x) = \lim_{x \to 4^{-}}f(x) = 3$ , this means the limit $\lim_{x \to 4}f(x)$ does exist and it's equal to 3.

As x gets closer and closer to 4, the y values are approaching 3. This applies to both directions.

4 0

1 year ago

What is the work for 368÷216,016

tino4ka555 [31]

9.39 is the answer if u divide and then multiply 016

6 0

3 years ago