Negative fractions on the number line
2 answers:
You might be interested in
Answer:
$46,141.71
Step-by-step explanation:
This looks about right, based on weekly deposits for the duration. However, I cannot vouch for it entirely, as the number of weekly deposits in 15 years will actually be 782.
_____
Computing this by hand doing the initial balance separately from the weekly deposits, I get a total of $46,252.10 using 782 weekly deposits. For that purpose, I tried to figure an equivalent weekly interest rate given monthly compounding and the fact there are 52 5/28 weeks in a year on average.
I suspect the only way to get this to the cent would be to build a spreadsheet with payment dates and interest computation/payment dates. Some months, there would be 5 deposits between interest computations; some years there would be 53 deposits.
Answer:
The factored form is (sin x +2)(sin x-1)
Step-by-step explanation:
We have been given the trigonometric function
We can factor this by AC method. In AC method we multiply the term a and c and then write the middle term b in such a way that the sum/difference is equal to the product 'ac'
Using the method, we can write sinx as 2sinx -sinx
Now, we group the first two terms and the last two terms
Now, we take GCF from each group
Factor out (sinx+2)
Therefore, the factored form is (sin x +2)(sin x-1)
Sum/difference:
Let
This means that
Now, assume that is rational. The sum/difference of two rational numbers is still rational (so 5-x is rational), and the division by 3 doesn't change this. So, you have that the square root of 8 equals a rational number, which is false. The mistake must have been supposing that
was rational, which proves that the sum/difference of the two given terms was irrational
Multiplication/division:
The logic is actually the same: if we multiply the two terms we get
if again we assume x to be rational, we have
But if x is rational, so is -x/15, and again we come to a contradiction: we have the square root of 8 on one side, which is irrational, and -x/15 on the other, which is rational. So, again, x must have been irrational. You can prove the same claim for the division in a totally similar fashion.