If tan(theta) is undefined what must be true?

answer: c, the green line

step-by-step explanation:

there is no black line, eliminate b.

simple interest implies periodic payments, but the red line shows no payments, eliminate d.

simple interest has equal payments. if paid say every day, the graph is about a straight line (actually a stairstep).

the yellow line is not straight, eliminate a.

check: the green line is straight, answer is c.

simple interest with positive interest rate gives a straight line sloping up to the right. green line:

g(t) = $100 + ($200-$100) ÷ (20 years) × (t years)

= $100 + (4%/year) × ($100)(t years)

incidentally, the yellow line curving upward represents continuously compounded interest

y = $100 × 2^(t years / (14 assuming the yellow line hits $200 at 14 years. 2^0 is 1, so y(0) = $100; 2^(14/14) is 2, so y(14) = $200.

the answer is a if my teacher taught me correct

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.