Drag the tiles to the correct boxes to complete the pairs. Match the y-coordinates with their corresponding pairs of x-coordinates on the unit circle.

Here is their argument. given the obtuse angle x, we make a quadrilateral abcd with ∠dab = x, and ∠abc = 90◦, and ad = bc. say the perpendicular bisector to dc meets the perpendicular bisector to ab at p. then pa = pb and pc = pd. so the triangles pad and pbc have equal sides and are congruent. thus ∠pad = ∠pbc. but pab is isosceles, hence ∠pab = ∠pba. subtracting, gives x = ∠pad−∠pab = ∠pbc −∠pba = 90◦. this is a preposterous conclusion – just where is the mistake in the "proof" and why does the argument break down there?

What is the equation of the following graph in vertex form? parabolic function going down from the left through the point zero comma twelve and through the point two comma zero and turning at the point four comma negative four and going up through the point six comma zero and continuing towards infinity courtesy of texas instruments a: y = (x − 4)2 − 4 b: y = (x + 4)2 − 4 c: y = (x + 2)2 + 6 d: y = (x + 2)2 + 12

Which matrix multiplication is possible?