The statement is false, because -2 is larger than -3.
<h3>Is the statement true?</h3>
We know that -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x).
So, if we define k as the smallest real zero of f(x), we have:
-3 < k.
Then we can take, for example, k = -2.5
That is an allowed value for the real zero.
In that case, -2 is not a lower bound, because is false that:
-2 < k = -2.5
Then if -3 is a lower bound for the real zeros of f(x), we can't assume that -2 is also a lower bound (because -2 is larger than -3).
If you want to learn more about lower bounds:
brainly.com/question/15991714
#SPJ1
Answer:
i believe your answer is B hope this helps
Step-by-step explanation:
:)
Answer:Not Enough Information
Step-by-step explanation:
There was not enough information given in the drawing and/or given list to prove the statement.
Answer: -1.5
Step-by-step explanation:
