AGarnetta owned 2400 shares of Metropolitan Corporation at a 1 po price of $45.50. The Stock split 4-for-3. How was Garnetta affected by the
split? *

< xcy ≅ < xby

step-by-step explanation:

in δcax and δbax,

so, δcax ≅ δbax (side-angle-side or sas)

since δcax ≅ δbax, we can conclude < acx ≅ < abx

in δacy and δaby,

so, δacy ≅ δaby (side-angle-side or sas)

since δacy ≅ δaby, we can conclude < acy ≅ < aby

now,

< acy ≅ < aby

=> < acx + < xcy ≅ < abx + < xby

=> < acx + < xcy ≅ < acx + < xby   (since < acx ≅ < abx already proved above)

subtracting < acx from both sides, we get

< acx + < xcy -< acx ≅ < acx + < xby -< acx

cancelling out < acx and -< acx from both sides, we get

< xcy ≅ < xby (proved)

is there a question here?

step-by-step explanation:

for future students the answer is b

hope i

-lavira: )

no oblique asymptote

step-by-step explanation:

to find the oblique asymptote of f(x)

here numerator has degree 1 and denomintor degree 2

degree of numerator < degree of denominator

hence there is no oblique asymptote

when the degree of the denominator > that of the numerator, we saw that the value in the denominator got so much bigger, so quickly,   giving us a horizontal asymptote of the x-axis. or we can write

f(x) = a polynomial of x + a proper fraction.

in this case only we have oblique asymptotes but not when numerator has less degree.