0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ezra
Devin
Beau
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What law states that the total pressure of a confined gaseous mixture equals the sum of individual gas pressures?
Daltons law
What is 27x 3 using the algebraic distributive law?
27x + 3 use distibutive law to factor
Why is a number divided by 0 equal to infinity?
You cannot divide a number by zero. This is easily explained by a simple example with the reverse operation of division, which is multiplication. For any nonzero number A, find the value of B such that A/0 = B This means that there would have to be some number B such that B x 0 = A and there is no such number by the law of multiplication by zero. Likewise, even for the huge number ∞, you would have the expression A/0 = ∞ and be faced with the impossible equation ∞ x 0 = A While it is tempting to imagine infinity as the inverse of zero, this is not the case. Zero is a defined value, while infinity is not.
What is the property of 3x7 plus 2 equals 3x7 plus 3x2?
3(7 + 2) = 3x7 + 3x2 is an example of the distributive law.The distributive law connects multiplication and addition.
Why is any number raised to a negative power is what it is?
That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.Consider this sequence:103 = 1000102 = 100101 = 10100 = 110-1 = 1/1010-2 = 1/100Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.Consider this sequence:103 = 1000102 = 100101 = 10100 = 110-1 = 1/1010-2 = 1/100Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.Consider this sequence:103 = 1000102 = 100101 = 10100 = 110-1 = 1/1010-2 = 1/100Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.That is the way it is defined; in theory, it could be defined any other way. But the definition commonly used makes several rules maintain their validity, for example, the law about adding exponents - even when the exponent is negative.Consider this sequence:103 = 1000102 = 100101 = 10100 = 110-1 = 1/1010-2 = 1/100Every time the exponent is reduced by one, the result gets reduced by a factor of 10. So, it seems logical to continue this pattern for a zero or negative exponent. Mind you, this is no proof - after all, the negative exponents is a matter of definitions, not of proof. The above only merely shows that the definition is reasonable.
