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
Do 9x2.5x10 = 225in3 the 3 at the end is a exponent so put it at the top after 225
Answer: 40 pages in total
Step-by-step explanation:
Ms. Vega has read 20% of the book and this translates to 8 pages of the book.
20% = 8 pages
Assume the total number of pages is x:
20% * x = 8
0.2x = 8
x = 8 / 0.2
x = 40 pages in total
Answer:
-10 - 6p
Step-by-step explanation:
-12 - 6p - ( - 2)
The double negative turns positive
-12 - 6p + 2
-12 + 2 - 6p
-10 - 6p
-Chetan K
add 5 to -5 and 7.
That narrows it down to 2x =12
then you divide 2 to 2x and 12
Then its x = 6
so X = 6 !!!!!!
