1. Complete the two-column proof below,
Given: ABCD is a quadrilateral,
AC is the perpendicular bisector of BD.
Prove: ABCD is a kite.
E
B
Reasons
1. Given
2.
Statements
1. ABCD is a quadrilateral. AC is
the perpendicular bisector of
BD.
2. DE ZEB
3. m2DEA = mZBEA = m_CED =
mZCEB = 90°
4. ZDEA ZBEA UCED CEB
3. Perpendicular lines
form right angles
4. All right angles are
congruent
5. Reflexive Property
5. AE = AE: CE = CE
6. SAS
6.
7.
7. AB = AD, DC = BC
8. Definition of a kite
8. ABCD is a kite.

54

step-by-step explanation:

6x9

dc=6 square root of 3 and ac is 12 square root 3

c and d

step-by-step explanation:

square root of 3/2 = 18/c

cross multiply to get 18*2=√3*c

36/√3 * √3/√3 = c

c= 36*√3/3

c=12√3

step-by-step explanation:

i think something is missing in your question because y-1=(x-12) would not pass through the point (-4,-3). because if you replace x by -4 your are supposed to find y=-3 which is not the case her. if you replace x by -4 you find =-15.

i assume the right equation is y-1=1/4*(x-12) because this one is passing through both your points (if you are interested to know how i found that out i can tell you).

in this equation if i replace x by -4 i find y=-3 and if i replace x by 12, i find y=1 so the line representing this equation is passing through those 2 points.

then the standard form of the equation is finding an expression of y in function of x

y-1=1/4*(x-12)

y=x/4-3+1

y=x/4-2

hope that .

do you confirm there was a mistake in the question?

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.