Consider the two rectangles shown. 2 rectangles have identical side lengths and angle measures. The second rectangle is a reflection of the first.

What transformation maps rectangle QRST to rectangle Q’R’S’T’?

reflection
rotation
stretch
translation

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. she sold more on day 2 because if you turn .85 into a fraction{85/100} and you give 7/9 and 85/100 the same denominator{180} you can see which one has the bigger numerator and that one will be the most sold.

2. yes it is in simplest form, because if you look at 38 and 53 's greatest common factor, you cant find one so you cant reduce it

3. no, this is not a prime factorization because the numbers are not all prime numbers, the correct prime factorization is:   2 x 5 x 2

4.   in 12 days he will run and play trumpet again

work 4 4: 123123123123

                123412341234     in 12 days he will play the trumpet and run on the same day

step-by-step explanation:

i am normally pretty good at math, im new to this site, but im 1 grade ahead in my math, i luv math try my answers out, see how they work

wouldn't that be a) 1

4=4x then divide 4 on both sides and you get x=1

multiple allele inheritance is traits controlled by more than 2 alleles (ex: pigeons having 3 alleles of one gene govern their feather color).