Given: F = {(0, 1), (2, 4), (4, 6), (6, 8)} and G = {(2, 5), (4, 7), (5, 8), (6, 9), (7, 5)} (F G) (2) = 20 10 40 halp

Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

The coordinate grid shows points a through k. which points are solutions to the system of inequalities listed below? 2x+ ys 10 2x 4y < 8 oa c, d, k o e, f. g, j oa, c, d, h, k oe, f. g, h, j

Rewrite the following quadratic functions in intercept or factored form. show your work. y = x^2 + 7x + 10