All categories

3 years ago

Can someone please give me the (Answers) to this? ... please ...

Mathematics

2 answers:

harkovskaia [24]3 years ago

5 0

Answer:please correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Part A for the slopes are…

1.3/1 or 3

2.-3

3.9/5

4.4/3

Step-by-step explanation:

It’s going up 3 and “running” 1 and it’s positive since the line is going up.

Y2-y1. -16-2

————= ————=-18/6=-3

X2-x1. 8-2

You’re just finding the slope

Solve for it. If further explanation is needed please tell me.

tatuchka [14]3 years ago

5 0

1. 9/5

2. -1/5

3. ? (no question)

4. 4 or 4/1

5. y = 1x + 4

6. -2x + 3

7. -1/5x + 2

8. -4x + 2

I'm not sure about 5-8 the wording of the questions are confusing.

You might be interested in

Hurry!!!Between which two values would 75% of the data represented on a box plot lie? Check all that apply.

sp2606 [1]

the answers are <span>the lower quartile and the maximum and The minimum and the upper quartile.</span>

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which number line represents the solution to [x-5]=1

alexandr402 [8]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

If there are illustrations to given problems, please share those illustrations. Thank you.

The only value of x for which [x-5]=1 is true is 6: [6-5]=1

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Give that the triangles shown below are similar, what is the value of x

Dima020 [189]

X=14 because it is half of 28

Hope this helps

7 0

3 years ago

"assume that s is a non-empty set of real numbers which is bounded above and lambda is the least upper bound. Prove that for all

s2008m [1.1K]

By definition, if $\lambda$ is the least upper bound of the set $S$ , it means two thing:

$\forall x \in S,\ x \leq \lambda$
$\forall \varepsilon>0,\ \exists x \in S:\ x>\lambda-\varepsilon$

In other words, the least upper bound of a set is greater than or equal to every single element of the set, but it is "close enough" to the elements of the set, because you guaranteed to find elements in the set between $\lambda-\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$

For example, pick $S = [1,10)$ . Obvisouly, the least upper bound is $\lambda = 10$ . In fact, every number in $[1,10)$ is smaller than 10, but as soon as you take away something from 10, say 0.01, you get 9.99, and there are elements in $S$ greater than 9.99, say 9.9999.

So, the claim is basically proven by definition: if $\beta < \lambda$ , let $0 < \delta = \lambda - \beta$ . By definition, there exists $\alpha \in S:\ \alpha > \lambda - \delta$ .