-42 decreased by 16 = -26
Answer:
Let's say you sold some goods to a customer. If the customer is not satisfied with the goods and returns it back to you, then it is called sales return.
Answer:
POINT B LIES ON FOUR FACES OF THE PYRAMID
Step-by-step explanation:
A PYRAMID HAS FIVE FACES IN THAT FOUR ARE TRIANGLE ONE IS SQUARE AS POINT B LIES AT THE TOP OF FOUR TRIANGLES WE CONSIDER AS IT LIES ON FOUR FACES OF A PYRAMID
I'VE TRYED MY LEVEL TO HELP YOU ONLOCK A STAR AND ADD ME AS BRAINLIEST
<span>The
content of any course depends on where you take it--- even two courses
with the title "real analysis" at different schools can cover different
material (or the same material, but at different levels of depth).
But yeah, generally speaking, "real analysis" and "advanced calculus"
are synonyms. Schools never offer courses with *both* names, and
whichever one they do offer, it is probably a class that covers the
subject matter of calculus, but in a way that emphasizes the logical
structure of the material (in particular, precise definitions and
proofs) over just doing calculation.
My impression is that "advanced calculus" is an "older" name for this
topic, and that "real analysis" is a somewhat "newer" name for the same
topic. At least, most textbooks currently written in this area seem to
have titles with "real analysis" in them, and titles including the
phrase "advanced calculus" are less common. (There are a number of
popular books with "advanced calculus" in the title, but all of the ones
I've seen or used are reprints/updates of books originally written
decades ago.)
There have been similar shifts in other course names. What is mostly
called "complex analysis" now in course titles and textbooks, used to be
called "function theory" (sometimes "analytic function theory" or
"complex function theory"), or "complex variables". You still see some
courses and textbooks with "variables" in the title, but like "advanced
calculus", it seems to be on the way out, and not on the way in. The
trend seems to be toward "complex analysis." hope it helps
</span>
A question such as this one is a little tricky since the people seated are not in a straight line.
For a circular table seating question, (n-1)! formula is used. Without restrictions 5! people can be seated.
You might be wondering why it is not 6!, this is because the first person will the the 6 person so you are accounting for the same person twice.
Hope I helped :)