What is the missing reason in the proof?
Prove –(–y – x) – x = y
–(–y – x) – x = –[–y +(–x)] – x Definition of subtraction
–[–y +(–x)] – x = y + x – x Opposite of a sum property
y + x – x = y + x + (–x) Definition of subtraction
y + x + (–x) = y + [x + (–x)] Associative Property of Addition
y + [x + (–x)] = y + 0 Additive Inverse Property
y + 0 = y ________________________
Additive Inverse Property
Additive Identity Property
Opposite of a Sum Property
Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
Hint: \(x*1 = x\) is an identity.
umm i am not sure D?
For the 4 answer choices, can you explain them? If you know what each of those properties do, then you should be able to answer this yourself. and we can confirm the answer and guide you if you get stuck.
Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.
You are guessing D: Opposite of a Sum property
in the equation \[y +0 = y\]I see a sum, but I don't see an opposite. What makes you think that would be a good guess?
Earlier in the proof, they do use the opposite of a sum property:
\(–[–y +(–x)] – x = y + x – x\) Opposite of a sum property
but that doesn't look anything like what we have in the mystery line
and now someone has given away the answer...
Remember. ....Zero is additive identity
And 1 is multiplicative identity.
Yes, the additive identity property is why \[y+0 = y\]is a justifiable step in the proof.
It would be very good if you could look at all of those reasons and understand what they mean...
i do know
could you give me an example of the symmetric property?