Here is the 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?

x=-2

infinite number of lines, so there is an infinite number of equations.

step-by-step explanation:

there are an infinite number of line that passes through the point (-2,5)

x=-2   is one line that passes through the point

y = 5 is another line that passes through the point

(these two lines are perpendicular to each other).

since the number of   numbers are infinite and the slope is the ratio of two numbers,(change in y over change in x) we can have an infinite number of slopes.     our only condition is that it passes through the point (-2,5)

geometric series converge the common ratio r has magnitude less than one.

which is equivalent to

for the example we need

|2-x| < 1

-1 < 2-x   and 2-x < 1

x < 3 and x > 1

we can write that

answer: 1 < x < 3

1a. common ratio r=250/25=10 > 1     diverges

1b.   r=50/100=1/2 converges

when these converge they converge to

where a is the first term.

answer: 200

1c. r=-1   so it's not the case that |r| < 1.     diverges

2a. x is the common ratio so we converge when |x|< 1

2b.   r=-10x / -2 = 5x.

we converge when

|5x| < 1

|x| < 1/5

2c.   r=3-2x

-1 < 3-2x and 3-2x < 1

-4 < -2x and 2 < 2x

x < 2 and 1 < x

1 < x < 2

2d. [/tex] r=-48x^3/12 = 4x^3[/tex]

|4x^3| < 1

|x^3| < \frac 1 4

|x| < 4^{-1/3}

i hope this is what you were looking for.

see attached graph