Given: m ZTRV = 60° mZTRS = (4x)
Prove: x = 30
v
Z
60° R
T
(4x)
W
S
What is the missing reason in step 3?

the answer is d. 75%

step-by-step explanation:

we can use this expression to calculate the energy gain as a particle moves with a field or the energy loss as it moves against it. (note that it is also used to define the electron-volt, a unit of energy equal to that gained by an electron as it falls through a pd of 1 v, i.e. w = 1 ev = 1.6 10-19 c 1 v = 1.6 10-19j).in fact this expression is really nothing more than the statement that potential is the potential energy per unit charge. in this case, v= w/qis simply stating that the change in potential energy(or work done) per unit charge is equal to the change in potential (or potential difference), v.student questions: uniform electric fields2electron beamcathode+5 kvanode0 v

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.

my apex says that it is false