Houston, TX, US
“What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger”
As far as I can see, my tags no longer update properly. Therefore, I’m retired.
Where did you grow up?
TX
Where do you live now?
TX
What is the highest level of education you have attained?
In College
What subjects did/do you enjoy the most at school?
Math
Which religion (if any) do you follow?
Catholic
Creal Default's Top (5) Replies by other users' votesYeah if it’s an inequality, this is how you work it:
x^2-x-2/(x+4)^2>0,
Multiply both sides by (x+4)^2 (keep in mind x=-4 would be undefined)
x^2-x-2 > 0
Factor the left side
(x-2)(x+1) > 0
So, we get the critical points, 2 and -1.
On the interval (-infinity, -1) the function is > 0 {but keep in mind it’s undefined at x=-4}
On the interval {-1,2} the function is =0
And on the interval from (2, infinity), the function is >0.
So the solution to this inequality is true when x is on the interval from:
(-inf, -4), (-4,-1), (2, inf)
Keep in mind the () mean do not include the stated number and {} means inlcude the stated number. You can not include inf or - inf.
- written 1 year, 1 month ago – voted for by SweetAngel
I’m not sure if this answer is what your teacher/homework is looking for:
Here’s the formula for interior angles of polygons where n is the number of sides:
180*(n-2) / n
So for a triangle, which has three sides:
180*((3)-2) / (3) = 60
A square, which has four sides:
180*((4)-2) / 4 = 90
So, when we get up to a polygon with 14 sides:
180*((14)-2) / 14 = 154.2858
And a polygon with 15 sides:
180*((15)-2) / 15 = 156
So, the interior angle will be around 154 degrees when there are 14 sides. Any polygon with fewer sides will have a smaller interior angle. The interior angle of a polygon with 15 sides is 156. Any polygon with more sides will have a larger interior angle. So, 155 degrees can not exist for any regular polygon.
- written 2 years, 1 month ago – voted for by Crazedcracker
I’ve never heard the term “radius chart” before.
I would advise that you graph using as T-Chart (plug in a few points and connect them) if you’re learning.
For x=-2, it should be a vertical line on x=-2. This is because y could be anything but x will always be -2.
For y=-(3/5), it should be a horizontal line on y=-(3/5). This is because x could be anything but y will always be (-3/5).
For 2x + y = 4, we can rewrite the equation as y = -2x + 4 after subtracting 2x from both sides. From here, plug in a few values for x (anything you want really):
y = -2*(0) + 4
(0,4)
y = -2*(1) + 4
(1,2)
y = -2*(2) + 4
(2,0)
y = -2*(3) + 4
(3, -2)
y = -2*(-1) + 4
(-1, 6)
So with the points: (-1,6); (0,4); (1,2);, (2,0); (3, -2) you should be able to graph a straight line after plotting these points. This line has a slope (’m') of -2 and a y-interesect (’b') of 4 (this is the spot where x=0). If you look at the equation we had earlier (y = -2x +4) you’ll see our graph is accurate. When you get more familar with the graphs, you should be able to look at the slope and y-intersect and be able to graph the function without having to use a T-Chart.
- written 2 years, 1 month ago – voted for by gypsie
26/57=849/5x
I’m interpreting it as
(26/57) = (849/5x)
To solve this, we need to manipulate both sides algebraically. We need to get x by itself and get the other numbers to the other side. The first problem is that x is in a denominator.
Multiply both sides by 5x
5x * (26/57) = 849
Then divide both sides by (26/57)
5x = 849/(26/57)
We can move the bottom denominator to the top numerator
5x = (849 * 57) / 26
Lastly divide both sides by 5
x = (849 * 57) / (26 * 5)
x= 372.253846
- written 2 years, 2 months ago – voted for by cady
Pretty much, keep dividing the number by the smallest prime number until you are left with a prime number.
Ex. 110
110 | 2
55 | 5
11
The factors are 2, 5, and 11.
- written 2 years, 2 months ago – voted for by cady