If given simply the slope of a line and a point through which it passes, and then told to find the equation of the line, one of the easiest ways of doing so is to use the point-slope formula.
It does not. The generalised linear form: ax + by + c = 0 is simpler since that is easily extended to 3 (or more) dimensional space.
you cant
For a linear I can see no advantage in the table method.
If given simply the slope of a line and a point through which it passes, and then told to find the equation of the line, one of the easiest ways of doing so is to use the point-slope formula.
If given simply the slope of a line and a point through which it passes, and then told to find the equation of the line, one of the easiest ways of doing so is to use the point-slope formula.
If given simply the slope of a line and a point through which it passes, and then told to find the equation of the line, one of the easiest ways of doing so is to use the point-slope formula.
Yes it can. A linear equation in the form of y=mx+b can always be graphed used the x and y intercepts.
Using the line of best fit, yes.
You calculate the coordinates using a fraction!
If it is a linear function, it is quite easy to solve the equation explicitly, using standard methods of equation-solving. For example, if you have "y" as a function of "x", you would have to solve the variable for "x".
By using the formula for a straight line equation graphed on the Cartesian plane by means of the x and y axes.
if the linear equation is x+y=1 means we are having the graph points (1,0) (2,-1)....using this graph we can draw the graph