An entertainment firm offers several dj choices and light shows that range in price based on the rental time period. the dj's cost between
$219.00 and $369.00 per night and the light shows cost between $159.00 and $309.00 per night. if you are booking both a dj and a light
show. write a compound inequality that represents the possible total amount you would pay, x

$3,200 x 7.25% = $3,200 x .0725 = $232 interest monthly

$232 monthly x 12 annual = $2, 784

step-by-step explanation:

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.

-1   1/6.   you dont subtract the denominators

step-by-step explanation:

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.