Given the current expression is nonsensical, it should be corrected for clarity. A plausible correction could be:

Solve for [tex]\( m \)[/tex]:
[tex]\[ 0 = 16 + 4(m - 6) \][/tex]



Answer :

Certainly! Let's solve the equation step-by-step.

The given equation is:
[tex]\[ 0 = 16 + 4(m - 6) \][/tex]

First, let's simplify the expression inside the parentheses:
[tex]\[ m - 6 \][/tex]

Next, distribute the 4 to both terms inside the parentheses:
[tex]\[ 4(m - 6) = 4m - 24 \][/tex]

Now, substitute this back into the equation:
[tex]\[ 0 = 16 + 4m - 24 \][/tex]

Combine the constant terms (16 and -24) on the right side:
[tex]\[ 16 - 24 = -8 \][/tex]
So, the equation becomes:
[tex]\[ 0 = 4m - 8 \][/tex]

To isolate the term with [tex]\(m\)[/tex], move the -8 to the other side by adding 8 to both sides of the equation:
[tex]\[ 0 + 8 = 4m - 8 + 8 \][/tex]
[tex]\[ 8 = 4m \][/tex]

Now, solve for [tex]\(m\)[/tex] by dividing both sides of the equation by 4:
[tex]\[ \frac{8}{4} = \frac{4m}{4} \][/tex]
[tex]\[ 2 = m \][/tex]

Hence, the solution to the equation is:
[tex]\[ m = 2 \][/tex]