Marie and Jorge are both trying to lose weight. After 3 months they compared their weight loss. Marie’s weight went from 175 to 150. Jorge’s weight went from 190 to 180. Which statements are true regarding their weight loss? Select three options. Jorge’s weight change was approximately 5%.
Marie’s weight change was approximately 14%.
Marie had the greater percent change.
Jorge had the greater percent change.
Marie’s weight change was approximately 1.4%.

127

whether it's diameter, or radius, i believe if i remember correctly from school, every amount has to always add up to 180. so if you take 53, and starting adding, long story short, taking 127 and adding it to 53, gives you 180.

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.

55.44 inches

step-by-step explanation:

part a. assuming a perfectly linear relationship, we can find the slope from the first two data points.

slope = m = (change in rainfall)/(change in years)

= (61.80 -62.33)/(2005 -2004) = -0.53/1 = -0.53

then the point-slope form of the equation of the line can be written as

y = m(x -h) +k . . . . . m = -0.53, (h, k) = (0, 62.33)

y = -0.53x +62.33 . . . x = years after 2004

part b. in 2017, x = 2017 -2004 = 13. then the predicted rainfall is

y = -0.53·13 +62.33 = 55.44 . . inches

the predicted rainfall in 2017 is 55.44 in.

1. when "a" is a root of a polynomial, (x -a) is a factor of it. for the three roots given, the factors of the desired polynomial are (x +2)(x -1/2)(x -3).

in order to make the leading coefficient be negative, we need to multiply this product by a negative number. any negative number will do, but we choose a small (magnitude) value that will eliminate the fraction: -2.

then

f(x) = -2(x +2)(x -1/2)(x -3) = -(x +2)(2x -1)(x -3)

= -(2x² +3x -2)(x -3)

= -(2x³ -3x² -11x +6)

f(x) = -2x³ +3x² +11x -6

2. a graph created by the desmos on-line graphing calculator is shown, and the zeros are highlighted.

3. as indicated in part 1, the multiplier of this equation can be anything and the zeros will remain the same. you want a negative leading coefficient, so the "anything" is restricted to any of the infinite number of numbers that will make that be the case.