Write the set of ordered pairs that is the inverse of each set. {(1, 3), (2, 5), (3, 3), (4, 1)}

Is the original set a function?
Is the inverse a function?

Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

If you are just building your payment history, how many points from a perfect score will you possibly miss?

Question: a) does the given set of points represent a linear function? how do you know? b) assume that the point (-2,4) lies on the graph of a line. what y-values could complete this set of ordered pairs that lie on the same line: (- (hint: there are several correct answ