Which transformations could be performed to show that △ABC is similar to △A"B"C"? a reflection over the x-axis, then a dilation by a scale factor of 3 a reflection over the x-axis, then a dilation by a scale factor of One-third a 180° rotation about the origin, then a dilation by a scale factor of 3 a 180° rotation about the origin, then a dilation by a scale factor of One-third

complete the steps to find the area of the trapezoid.

area of rectangle = 256   square units

area of triangle 1 = 24  square units

area of triangle 2 = 16  square units

area of triangle 3 =   96 square units

area of trapezoid = 120  square units

step-by-step explanation:

step-by-step explanation:

we are given a graph for system of inequalities.

in order to write the system of inequalities for the given graph, we need to find the inequality for each of the line separately.

let us find the slope of dotted line first.

taking two coordinates on the graph.

let us say (0,0) and (3,1).

let us find the slope of the line now.

slope of the dotted line would be =.

y-intercept of dotted line is y=0 only.

plugging slope m= and b=0 in slope-intercept form y=mx+b, we get

.

the line is shaded up of that dotted line.

therefore, for shading up we would take greater than inequality symbol > .

and because it's a dotted line we would take only > symbol in place of = sign in above equation of line.

therefore, inequality for dotted line would be

let us take two points (3,1) and (0,4) on the solid line.

slope of the solid line would be =.

for the solid line we have y-intercept b= 4.

plugging slope m= -1 and b=4 in slope-intercept form y=mx+b, we get

y = -1x + 4.

the line is shaded down of that solid line.

therefore, for shading down we would take less than inequality symbol < .

and because it's a solid line we would take ≤ symbol in place of = sign in above equation of line.

therefore, inequality for solid line would be

answer: 414,377,008

step-by-step explanation:

just multiply it

i think it's eleven too, don't woosh me here, but according to the "experts" it's 2.

the proof starts from the peano postulates, which define the natural

numbers n. n is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

  p1.   1 is in n.

  p2.   if x is in n, then its "successor" x' is in n.

  p3.   there is no x such that x' = 1.

  p4.   if x isn't 1, then there is a y in n such that y' = x.

  p5.   if s is a subset of n, 1 is in s, and the implication

      (x in s => x' in s) holds, then s = n.

then you have to define addition recursively:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 1, then define a + b = a'

      (using p1 and p2). if b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in n

      (using p4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

then you have to define 2:

  def:   2 = 1'

2 is in n by p1, p2, and the definition of 2.

theorem:   1 + 1 = 2

proof: use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

      then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2   q.e.d.

note: there is an alternate formulation of the peano postulates which

replaces 1 with 0 in p1, p3, p4, and p5. then you have to change the

definition of addition to this:

  def: let a and b be in n. if b = 0, then define a + b = a.

      if b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in n, and define

      a + b = (a + c)'.

you also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. then the proof of the

theorem above is a little different:

proof: use the second part of the definition of + first:

      1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'

      now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in

      parentheses:   1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2   q.e.d.