can you be nice and please help me with my geomety question?
ok
wich step in alex prove is incorrect
are u muslim
prove: 13 is a factor of 195 step 1; assumm that 13 is not a factor of 195 step 2;195 divided by 13 is 15 step 3 a factor is an integer by wich another integer is a multiple
step; therefore 13 is must be a factor of 195
lol @subway_surfers weird qs he asked for help n u aske if he is muslim :o
wich step in alex prove is incorrect?
i am not a he i am a she
i was waiting on her question
ohk sry :)
i am not muslim i am from Puerto rico is just that i wrote my name back words
My name is Daisy can you help me with my question
pleaseee?
how do u mention someone
what?
ok the proof it seems week all of it but tell me ur coures name n ill help u wid it
geometry
can you help?
in geometry , to prove 13 is a factor of 195 means u can construct a rectangle wid sides 13×M such that 195 =13 M in our case M=15 ok ?? |dw:1389892480316:dw|
nw lets prove it by contradiction
so i thik is step 2 that is worng
correct :) cuz we assumed that 13 dnt devide 195 but it minstioned that we devided by 13 :)
but 195 divided by 13 is 15
maybe il work it this time for u, so u get a feel of how to do other indirect proofs like this :- To prove : 13 is a factor of 195 using indirect proof ##Step 1 : Assume the opposite of what u wanto prove Since we want to prove that 13 is a factor of 195, lets start by assuming the opposite is true - "13 is NOT a factor of 195". So that gives the premise that 195 is not a multiple of 13 ##Step 2 : Look for contradiction However 195/13 = 15. that means 13 goes evenly in 195. that means 195 is a multiple of 13 which is a contradiction to our premise. ##Step 3 : Conclude We arrived at contradiction cuz our assumption is wrong. So the opposite of our assumption must be true : "13 is a factor of 195"
thank you so the answer is step 2?
prove: 13 is a factor of 195 step 1; assumm that 13 is not a factor of 195 step 2;195 divided by 13 is 15 step 3 a factor is an integer by wich another integer is a multiple
as ikram said, the proof is weak. having said that, step1 and step2 are fine. cuz in step 1 she assumed the opposite of what she needs to prove - which is correct in step2 she arrived at a contradiction which is also bit okay.
however, in step3 she needs to conclude the proof which she dint do, so for answer, il tick step3...
basic structure of any indirect proof :- step1 : assume opposite of wat u wanto prove step2 : look for contradiciton step3 : conclude
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!