Bernard solved the equation 5 x + (negative 4) = 6 x + 4 using algebra tiles. Which explains why Bernard added 5 negative x-tiles to both sides in the first step of the solution? He wanted to create zero pairs on the left side of the equation to get a positive coefficient of x on the right side. He wanted to combine more negative tiles with the 4 negative tiles on the left side of the equation. He wanted to remove the larger coefficient on the left side of the equation. He wanted to have 10 x-tiles on the left side of the equation.

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.

is this a dating site too?

answer:   the paragraph proof is mentioned below.

step-by-step explanation:

given: in a δxwy where

such that, ∠wzx ≅ ∠yzx and zw≅zy

we have to prove that: segment zx is a perpendicular bisector of segment wy.

prove: since, zw≅zy ⇒ ∠wzy is a supplementary angle.

then, ∠wzy= 180°

⇒∠wzx + ∠yzx = 180° ( because xz divides ∠wzy into two parts)

but, ∠wzx ≅ ∠yzx ( given)

⇒∠wzy+∠wzy=180° ( by substitution)

⇒2∠wzy=180°

⇒∠wzy=90°

⇒∠wzy=∠yzx =90°

therefore, xz⊥wy where wz=zy

⇒zx is a perpendicular bisector of wy.