One line passes through the points (2,1) and (5,7). Another line passes through points (-3,8) and (8,3). Are the lines parallel, perpendicular, or neither?

no problobm

step-by-step explanation:

answer: get jesus in your life

step-by-step explanation:

a.   we have two

lines:   y = 4-x   and  

y = 8-x^-1

given two simultaneous equations that are both to be

true, then the solution is the points where the lines cross. the intersection is

where the two equations are equal. therefore the solution that works for both

equations is when

4-x = 8-x^-1

this is where the two lines will cross and that is the

common point that satisfies both equations.

b.   4-x = 8-x^-1

  x           4-x       8-x^-1

-3           7        

8.33

-2           6         8.5

-1           5         9

  0           4        

-

  1           3        

7

  2           2        

7.5

  3           1         7.67

the table shows that none of the x values from -3 to 3 is

the solution because in no case does

4-x = 8-x^-1

to find the solution we need to rearrange the equation to

find for x:

4-x = 8-x^-1

multiply both sides with x:

4x-x^2 = 8x-1

x^2+4x-1=0

x= -4.236, 0.236

therefore there are two points that satisfies the

equation.

find y:  

x=-4.236

y = 4-x   = 4 – (-4.236)

= 8.236

y = 8-x^-1 =   .236)^-1

= 8.236

x=0.236

  y = 4-x   = 4 – (0.236) = 3.764

y = 8-x^-1 =   8-(0.236)^-1

= 3.764

thus the two lines cross at 2 points:

(-4.236, 8.236) & (0.236, 3.764)

c.   to solve

graphically the equation 4-x = 8-x^-1

we would graph both lines: y = 4-x   and   y

= 8-x^-1

the point on the graph where the lines cross is the

solution to the system of equations.

just graph the points on part b on a cartesian coordinate

system and extend the two lines.   the

solution is, as stated, the point where the two lines cross on the graph.

step-by-step explanation:

mark brainliest!

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.