CPhill

The horizontal intercept is where P(x) = 0....so

0 = - 2000x + 50000    add 2000x to both sides

2000x = 50000    divide both sides by 2000

x = 25

Look at the graph........the point (25, 0)  is the horizontal [x] intercept

I assume you have something like this ???

If so.....the percentage is given by   28 / [ 56 + 28 + 52 + 64 ]   = 28 / 200   = 14%

We can also answer this question by looking at the next day, March 1.  It falls on Monday in 2004. And this date advances forward one day for each 365 day year and two days forward in every leap year. Thus, three 365 day years pass between 2004 and 2008 and one leap occurs in 2008. So, March 1 advances 5 days ahead on March 1, 2008 [ i.e., it occurs on Saturday in that year].

The same pattern occurs between 2008 and 2102.....the date advances 5 more days and occurs on Thursday in 2102.....and Feb 29th is the day before......i.e., Wednesday.....!!!!

Here's (1)

When the price = $0, they would sell the most pasta bowls - i.e., 50000......[this isn't very realistic  !!!]  ....this is the vertical [ y ] intercept  (0, 50000)

When the price is rased to  $25 per bowl, their sales are 0........this is the horizontal [ x ] intercept..(25, 0).....[ this isn't realistic,either ] .....

Here's the graph......https://www.desmos.com/calculator/qa2yjbairx

(1)  P(t)   = 25t + 30

(2) At 4PM....this is 10 hours after 6AM.....so

P(10)  = 25(10) + 30  =    280 PPM

Let t be the time elapsed since it arrived at the nursery and let g be the height at any time, t.

Notice....at t = 0, h = 2 cm    = ( 0, 2)

And at t = 2, h = 5  = (2, 5)

So.....to get a linear equation, we first need to find the slope.....so we have

[ 5 - 2 ] / [ 2 - 0 ]   = 3/2      and using (0, 2)  we have

y - 2  = (3/2) (x - 0) 

y = (3/2)x + 2  and we can this  linear function  as :

g(t)  = (3/2)t + 2

(2)  3 months = 12 weeks....so we have

g(12) = (3/2) (12) + 2   =  18 + 2  = 20 cm

NO!!!!!.....this violates the triangle inequality which says that the sum of any two sides of a triangle is greater than the remaining side.

But  :

6 + 2  < 9.3

So....this triangle is impossible.....

I think this is what you might be referring to, rosala......

http://web2.0calc.com/questions/communications-with-andre-massow-with-reply_1

2/3 - 1/6   remember....we have to get a common denominator ........and the common denominator of 2 and  6  is 6........

2 / 3  = 4 / 6   ......we multiplied the 3 in the denominator of the first fraction by 2 to get the 6 in the denominator of the second fraction.......we have to do the same to the numerator of the first fraction (2) in order to get the numerator of 4 of the second fraction   ....so we have.....

4 / 6  - 1 / 6  = 3 / 6   = 1 /2

2/5 + 1/6    the common denominator  is 30.....so we have

[2 / 5] * [6 / 6 ]   +  [ 1 / 6]* [ 5 / 5]   =

12 / 30 +  5 / 30    = 17 / 30

2  1/4 + 1 3/4       this one is easy.....we really have.....

2 + 1 + 1/4 + 3/4   =

3 + 4/4        and 4/4  = 1   .so.....

3 + 1   =

4

If you meant this :  

100^{log 2} .........we have

(10²) ^{log 2}   =

10 ^{2log 2}  =

10^( log 2² )  =

10 ^{log 4} =      [ Following the rule that   a^( log_a b )  = b ] , we end up with :

4