Quadrilateral ABCD has vertices A(−5,8),B(−3,10),C(1,6) and D(−3,5). Identify the coordinates of the vertices of the image of ABCD after a 180∘ rotation about the origin.

This sequence adds three more blocks for each consecutive figure.

The number of blocks from the first to the fourth figures are:

1, 4, 7, 10, ...

So, it is an arithmetic sequence with first term 1 and the difference d between terms equal to 3.

Thus, the nth term is given by the formula:

Therefore, the 9th term is:

Thus, in the 9th figure, there are 25 blocks.

Answer:

(-3,5)

Step-by-step explanation:

I got it right on khan academy

Answer:

C) -2/9

Step-by-step explanation:

\(\displaystyle -\frac{1}{6}\biggr[3-15\biggr(\frac{1}{3}\biggr)^2\biggr]\\\\=-\frac{1}{6}\biggr[3-15\biggr(\frac{1}{9}\biggr)\biggr]\\\\=-\frac{1}{6}\biggr[3-\frac{15}{9}\biggr]\\\\=-\frac{1}{6}\biggr[\frac{27}{9}-\frac{15}{9}\biggr]\\\\=-\frac{1}{6}\biggr[\frac{12}{9}\biggr]\\\\=-\frac{1}{6}\biggr[\frac{4}{3}\biggr]\\\\=-\frac{4}{18}\\\\=-\frac{2}{9}\)

Answer:

Hence, Option (C) - 2/9 is the Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

-1/6 [3 -15(1/3)^2]

-1/6(3 -15)(1/9))

-1/6(3 - 5/3)

-1/6 (4/3)

Hence, Option (C) - 2/9 is the Answer:

I hope it helps!

By using the coordinates of the labeled point, the point-slope equation of the line include the following: D. y + 5 = -3(x - 3)

In Mathematics and Geometry, the point-slope form of a straight line can be calculated by using the following mathematical equation (formula):

y - y₁ = m(x - x₁)

Where:

0 5 2 -2

First of all, we would determine the slope of this line;

Slope (m) = (y₂ - y₁)/(x₂ - x₁)

Slope (m) = (4 + 5)/(0 - 3)

Slope (m) = -9/3

Slope (m) = -3

At data point (3, -5) and a slope of -3, a linear equation for this line can be calculated by using the point-slope form as follows:

y - y₁ = m(x - x₁)

y - (-5) = 3(x - 3)  

y + 5 = -3(x - 3)

Read more on point-slope here: brainly.com/question/24907633

#SPJ1

Missing information:

The question is incomplete and the complete question is shown in the attached picture.

Answer:

the iqr is 42

Step-by-step explanation:

1. Axis of symmetry : x= -5            2. Axis of symmetry : x =2

Vertex: (-5, 1)                                                  Vertex: (2, 8)
Domain: (-∞, ∞)                                                Domain  (-∞, ∞)
Ranges:  [1, ∞)                                                   Ranges (-∞, 8]

3. Axis of symmetry : x = 1                4. Axis of symmetry x = -4

Vertex (1, -1)                                                       Vertex = (-4 0)
Domain (-∞, ∞)                                                    Domain (-∞, ∞)
Ranges  [-1, +∞)                                               Ranges (-∞, 0]

For 4. y = -x² - 8x -16

Axis of symmetry

x = -b / (2a)

x = -(-8) / (2 × -1) = 8 / (-2) = -4

Vertex

y = -(-4)² - 8(-4) - 16

= -16 + 32 - 16

= 0  therefore Vertex is (-4, 0)

Therefore range function  (-∞, ∞)

The above answers are for the questions below as seen in the picture

1) y = x² + 10x + 26                    2. y = -2x² + 8x        3. y = x² - 2x

Axis of symmetry :

Vertex
Domain
Ranges

4. y = -x² - 8x -16

Find more exercises on finding Axis of symmetry;

https://brainly.com/question/29107199

#SPJ1

Answer:

yes

Step-by-step explanation:

you find the area by multiplying 38 X 112= 4,256

4,400 - 4,256= 144 left over

Answer and Step-by-step explanation:

To find out how many more yards of red fabric Reuben used, we need to subtract the amount of yellow fabric from the amount of red fabric. Since the two fractions have different denominators, we need to find a common denominator before subtracting them. The least common multiple of 8 and 4 is 8, so we can rewrite both fractions with a denominator of 8:

7/8 - 1/4 = 7/8 - (1/4) * (2/2) = 7/8 - 2/8 = (7 - 2)/8 = 5/8

So, Reuben used 5/8 yards more red fabric than yellow fabric.

The function g(x) = x² + 4x has a: A. minimum.

The minimum value occur at x = -2.

The function's minimum value is -4.

In Mathematics, the axis of symmetry of a quadratic function can be calculated by using this mathematical equation:

Axis of symmetry = -b/2a

Where:

a and b represents the coefficients of the first and second term in the quadratic function.

For the given quadratic function g(x) = x² + 4x, we have:

a = 1, b = 4, and c = 0

Axis of symmetry, Xmax = -b/2a

Axis of symmetry, Xmax = -(4)/2(1)

Axis of symmetry, Xmax = -2

Next, we would determine vertex as follows;

g(x) = x² + 4x

g(-2) = -(-2)² + 4(-2)

g(-2) = -4.

Read more on quadratic functions here: brainly.com/question/14201243

#SPJ1

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

\(r=\frac{-28}{56}=-\frac{1}{2}\\a_{n}=\frac{-1}{2}a_{n-1}\)

The recursive formula for the sequence is aₙ = (-1/2) * aₙ₋₁

A sequence of numbers such that the consecutive term is increasing or decreasing by a fixed ratio is called a geometric series.

The standard equation for geometric series is

Tₙ = a₁ rⁿ⁻¹

The formula above represents the explicit formula to determine the nth term of the sequence.

The recursive formula is used to determine the nth term when (n-1) th term is given.

The geometric sequence is,

56, -28, 14, -7,.................

The first term of the sequence is 56

The common ratio is determined by taking the ratio of the second term to the first term.

r = -28/56 = -1/2

The recursive formula is represented by,

aₙ = r * aₙ₋₁

aₙ = (-1/2) * aₙ₋₁

To know more about Geometric Series

https://brainly.com/question/4617980

#SPJ5

Answer:

approx 26%

Step-by-step explanation:

you try find the multiplier

200000 * 1. ???? ^3= 400000

rearrange equation

\(\sqrt[3]{\frac{400000}{200000} }\)       =   multiplier

1.25992105

subract one

0.25992105

multiply by 100 to get percentage

25.9%

rounded to whole number = 26%

The number of suspects had less than two prior arrests are 3.

Given that, While reviewing the previous day’s arrest report.

Let x be the number of suspects have been arrested once before and y be the number of suspects arrested twice before.

Here, x+y=5 -----(i)

2x+3y=12 -----(ii)

From equation (i), x=5-y in equation (ii), we get

2(5-y)+3y=12

10-2y+3y=12

10+y=12

y=2

Substitute y=2 in equation (i), we get

x+2=5

x=3

Therefore, the number of suspects had less than two prior arrests are 3.

To learn more about the linear system of an equations visit:

https://brainly.com/question/27664510.

#SPJ1

Answer:

The length of the largest side of DEF is 40.

Step-by-step explanation:

Similar triangles' corresponding sides are proportional in length.

The smallest side of ABC is 12, and that is the corresponding side to the smallest side of DEF.

Calculate the proportional factor.

24 / 12 = 2.

Since similar triangles' sides are corresponding, the largest side of ABC will correspond with the largest side of DEF.

Calculate the largest side length.

20 * 2 = 40.

Answer:

60

Step-by-step explanation:

10 x sqrt64 - 5 x 4

10 x 8 - 5 x 4

80 - 20

60

Answer:

y= (0, .7)

x= (-1.2, 0)

Step-by-step explanation:

r u taking a test?

Answer:

  24/49

Step-by-step explanation:

Let's add the terms and see if there's a pattern

  \(\dfrac{1}{1\times 3}+\dfrac{1}{3\times 5}=\dfrac{5+1}{1\times 3\times 5}=\dfrac{2}{5}\quad\text{sum of 2 terms}\\\\\dfrac{2}{5}+\dfrac{1}{5\times 7}=\dfrac{14+1}{5\times7}=\dfrac{3}{7}\quad\text{sum of 3 terms}\)

Suppose we say the sum of n terms is (n/(2n+1)), the next term in the series will be 1/((2n+1)(2n+3)) and adding that to the presumed sum gives ...

  \(\dfrac{n}{2n+1}+\dfrac{1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}=\dfrac{n(2n+3)+1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}=\dfrac{2n^2+3n+1}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}\\\\=\dfrac{(2n+1)(n+1)}{(2n+1)(2n+3)}=\dfrac{n+1}{2n+3}\text{ matches }\dfrac{(n+1)}{2(n+1)+1}\)

Then it appears the sum of n terms is (n/(2n+1)). So, the sum of 24 terms is ...

  \(S_{24}=\dfrac{24}{2\times24+1}=\boxed{\dfrac{24}{49}}\)

Answer:

R = (0,-8)

Step-by-step explanation:

Let's look at the difference between S, and the midpoint M.

S(6,0) - M(3,-4) = N(3,4) This will help us find R(x,y)

Next, take M, and subtract N from it.

M(3,-4) - N(3,4) = (0,-8). This is the value of R.

The number that is ten thousand greater than 585,501 is 595,501.

A greater number is a number that when compared with another has a higher numerical value than the former.

To show that a number is greater than another, more values can be determined to account for their differences using basic mathematical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

The population of Wyoming in 2020 = 585,501

Additional population to Wyoming = 10,000

New population of Wyoming = 595,501 (585,501 + 10,000)

Thus, the number that is ten thousand greater than 585,501 is 595,501.

Learn more about the number system at https://brainly.com/question/17200227

#SPJ1

Answer:

248 ounces

Step-by-step explanation:

I hope this helps :D

Answer:

248 ounces is the correct answer hope you will like it and Mark me as BRAINLIEST!!!!

Answer:

1.029 is greater than 1.0275

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer:

1.029

Step-by-step explanation:

What is greater 1.0275 or 1.029

.027 < .029

So, 1.029 is greater.

The answer is the Division on the top The multiplication then -14

Step-by-step explanation: I hope this will help you

Answer:

156 M

Reasoning you add How far He has walked from his starting point

Step-by-step explanation:

Answer: 156 m here u go

1) The given statement " assuming f is not the constant function over c. So, f cannot attain a maximum in the interior of c." is truly proved and we have also

2) proved that "if c is a compact convex set, and f is a continuous convex function over c, then at least one maximizer is an extreme point of c" where f is convex function and c is convex set.

Assume that f is not a constant function over c and that f attains a maximum at some point x in the interior of c. Since x is in the interior of c, there exists a small enough ball B around x that is completely contained in the interior of c. Since f is convex, it is also continuous on c, so it is continuous on B. By the extreme value theorem, f attains a maximum on B at some point y. However, since f is not constant over c, there exists a point z in c such that f(z) > f(y). Since B is contained in the interior of c, z is not in B, and hence z is not equal to y. But this contradicts the fact that y is a maximum of f on B. Therefore, f cannot attain a maximum in the interior of c.

(ii) Assume that c is a compact convex set, f is continuous and convex over c, and that no maximizer is an extreme point of c. Since c is compact, there exists a finite set of extreme points {p1, p2, ..., pk} such that any point in c can be written as a convex combination of these extreme points. That is, for any x in c, there exist non-negative coefficients {a1, a2, ..., ak} such that x = a1p1 + a2p2 + ... + akpk, and a1 + a2 + ... + ak = 1.

Since none of the maximizers are extreme points, each maximizer x can be written as a convex combination of the extreme points with at least one non-zero coefficient. That is, for each maximizer x, there exists a set of indices {i1, i2, ..., im} such that x = b1p i1 + b2p i2 + ... + bm p im , where b j > 0 for all j and m < k.

Consider the set S = {x in c : f(x) ≥ f(p i1 ) for all i1 = 1, 2, ..., k}. Since f is continuous and c is compact, S is also compact. Moreover, since f(p i1 ) is a constant for each i1, S is a convex set.

We claim that S is non-empty. To see this, let x1 be any maximizer of f on c. Since x1 is not an extreme point, it can be written as a convex combination of some extreme points {p i1 , p i2 , ..., p im }. Since f(x1) is maximal, it must be that f(x1) ≥ f(p i1 ) for all i1. Hence x1 is in S, so S is non-empty.

Since S is a non-empty compact convex set, it has an extreme point x*. By the definition of S, we have f(x*) ≥ f(p i1 ) for all i1 = 1, 2, ..., k. We claim that x* is a maximizer of f on c.

Suppose not. Then there exists some point y in c such that f(y) > f(x*). By the convexity of f, there exists some t in (0,1) such that f(tx* + (1-t)y) > f(x*). Since x* is an extreme point of S and S is convex, it must be that tx* + (1-t)y is not in S. Therefore, there exists some i1 such that f(tx* + (1-t)y) < f(p i1 ). But this contradicts the fact that x* is an extreme point of S and f(x*) ≥ f(p i1 ) for all i1.  Hence, x* is indeed a maximizer of f on c, and since x* is an extreme point of c, we have shown that at least one maximizer of f is an extreme point of c.

Therefore, we have proved that if c is a compact convex set, and f is a continuous convex function over c, then at least one maximizer is an extreme point of c.

To know more about convex function:

brainly.com/question/30340321

#SPJ4

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

(4/x)+6

Answer:

It's 8 units to the left and 5 units up.

Step-by-step explanation:

You know this because the bottom right point of the triangle starts out at (6,-6) and ends up at (-2,-1), so the x value decreased by 8 and the y value increased by 5.

Answer:

A translation by 8 units to the left and 5 units up.

Step-by-step explanation:

A = (3,-4)

B = (5, -2)

C = (6,-6)

A' = (-5,1)

B' = (-3,3)

C' = (-2,-1)

(3,-4) --> (-5,1)  = -8, +5

(5,-2) --> (-3,3) =   -8, +5

(6,-6) --> (-2,-1) = -8, +5

Constant of -8 in x-values.

Constant of +5 in y-values.

8 left.

5 up.

1. In this case, we want the reliability to be 95%, so the probability of not breaking down is 0.95.

2. Probability of no breakdowns = (reliability of a single machine)^3. Probability of at least one breakdown = 1 - Probability of no breakdowns

1. To determine how often the computer should be scheduled for maintenance, we need to consider the reliability and the desired level of operational condition. Since the duration for trouble-free operation follows a gamma distribution with a mean of 40 days, this means that, on average, the computer can operate for 40 days before a breakdown occurs.

To ensure operational condition with a 95% probability, we can calculate the maintenance interval using the concept of reliability. The reliability represents the probability that the machine will not break down within a certain time period. In this case, we want the reliability to be 95%, so the probability of not breaking down is 0.95.

Using the gamma distribution parameters, we can find the corresponding reliability for a specific time duration. By setting the reliability equation equal to 0.95 and solving for time, we can find the maintenance interval:

reliability = 0.95

time = maintenance interval

Using reliability and the gamma distribution parameters, we can calculate the maintenance interval.

2. To calculate the probability that at least one of the three machines will break down within the first scheduled maintenance time, we can use the complementary probability approach.

The probability that none of the machines will break down within the first scheduled maintenance time is given by the reliability of a single machine raised to the power of the number of machines:

Probability of no breakdowns = (reliability of a single machine)^3

Since the breakdown times between the machines are statistically independent, we can assume that the reliability of each machine is the same. Therefore, we can use the reliability calculated in the first part and substitute it into the formula:

Probability of at least one breakdown = 1 - Probability of no breakdowns

By calculating this expression, we can determine the probability that at least one of the three machines will break down within the first scheduled maintenance time.

For more such questions on Probability

https://brainly.com/question/23286309

#SPJ8

The relation that can not be supported by the evidence in the image is option B

Corresponding angles are those that are located on the same side of the transversal and in identical relative positions to the parallel lines. Angles that correspond to one another have the same measure.

Alternate interior angles are those that are located on the transverse and within the area between the parallel lines, respectively. Congruent alternate interior angles exist.

Alternate external angles are those that are outside of the space between the parallel lines and on the opposing sides of the transversal. Congruent external angles exist between the two.

Learn more about transversal:https://brainly.com/question/17987539

#SPJ1

After 300 trials, the experimental probabilities may not align perfectly with the theoretical probabilities. However, with more trials, the experimental probabilities tend to converge towards the theoretical probabilities for closer alignment.

To examine whether experimental probabilities after 300 trials align closely with theoretical probabilities, let's consider an example of flipping a fair coin.

Theoretical probability: When flipping a fair coin, the theoretical probability of obtaining heads or tails is 0.5 each. This assumes that the coin is unbiased and has an equal chance of landing on either side.

Experimental probability: After conducting 300 trials of flipping the coin, we record the outcomes and calculate the experimental probabilities. Let's assume that heads occurred 160 times and tails occurred 140 times.

Experimental probability of heads: 160/300 = 0.5333

Experimental probability of tails: 140/300 = 0.4667

Comparing the experimental probabilities to the theoretical probabilities, we can observe that the experimental probability of heads is slightly higher than the theoretical probability, while the experimental probability of tails is slightly lower.

In this particular example, the experimental probabilities after 300 trials do not align perfectly with the theoretical probabilities. However, it is important to note that these differences can be attributed to sampling variability, as the experimental outcomes are subject to random fluctuations.

To draw a more definitive conclusion about the alignment between experimental and theoretical probabilities, a larger number of trials would need to be conducted. As the number of trials increases, the experimental probabilities tend to converge towards the theoretical probabilities, providing a closer alignment between the two.

For more such information on: probabilities

https://brainly.com/question/30390037

#SPJ8  

The question probable may be:

Do experimental probabilities after 300 trials tend to align closely with theoretical probabilities? Consider an example scenario and calculate both the theoretical and experimental probabilities to determine if they are close.

Answer:

x<-3

Step-by-step explanation:

-7x+6/3 >9

-7x+6 >27

-7x>27-6

-7x>21

-x>3

x<-3