The perimeter of the triangle below is 10x - 3 Show how to solve

Mathematics

1 answer:

bezimeni [28]2 years ago

4 0

10x - 3 = x + 2 + 2x - 1
10x - 3 = 3x + 1
-3x on both sides
7x - 3 = 1
-1 on both sides
7x - 4

(Check 7x - 4 by adding them all up to equal 10x - 3)
x + 2 + 2x - 1 + 7x - 4 = 10x - 3
combine liked terms
10x - 3 = 10x - 3

Answer:
D) 7x - 4

You might be interested in

Which survey method is the best representation of a target population?

chubhunter [2.5K]

D would be the best option in my opinion

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

I dont Know what to put here <br> But Anwer Pls

g100num [7]

Answer:

Step-by-step explanation:

So, the 24cm, is the diameter, a little circle autonomy here, the diameter is the length across the circle, and the radius is to the mid point, or half-way point, which means that the radius is half the diameter, so, 24 ÷ 2 = 12

hope this helps:)

5 0

2 years ago

If a cup of coffee is at 90°C and a person with a body temperature of 36°C touches it, how will heat flow between them?

Alex777 [14]

Answer:

The answer is B (From the cup to the hand)

Step-by-step explanation:

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

"assume that s is a non-empty set of real numbers which is bounded above and lambda is the least upper bound. Prove that for all

s2008m [1.1K]

By definition, if $\lambda$ is the least upper bound of the set $S$ , it means two thing:

$\forall x \in S,\ x \leq \lambda$
$\forall \varepsilon>0,\ \exists x \in S:\ x>\lambda-\varepsilon$

In other words, the least upper bound of a set is greater than or equal to every single element of the set, but it is "close enough" to the elements of the set, because you guaranteed to find elements in the set between $\lambda-\varepsilon$ and $\lambda$

For example, pick $S = [1,10)$ . Obvisouly, the least upper bound is $\lambda = 10$ . In fact, every number in $[1,10)$ is smaller than 10, but as soon as you take away something from 10, say 0.01, you get 9.99, and there are elements in $S$ greater than 9.99, say 9.9999.

So, the claim is basically proven by definition: if $\beta < \lambda$ , let $0 < \delta = \lambda - \beta$ . By definition, there exists $\alpha \in S:\ \alpha > \lambda - \delta$ .