Answer:
isn't an equivalence relation. It is reflexive but neither symmetric nor transitive.
Step-by-step explanation:
Let
denote a set of elements.
would denote the set of all ordered pairs of elements of
.
For example, with
,
and
are both members of
. However,
because the pairs are ordered.
A relation
on
is a subset of
. For any two elements
,
if and only if the ordered pair
is in
.
A relation
on set
is an equivalence relation if it satisfies the following:
- Reflexivity: for any
, the relation
needs to ensure that
(that is:
.)
- Symmetry: for any
,
if and only if
. In other words, either both
and
are in
, or neither is in
.
- Transitivity: for any
, if
and
, then
. In other words, if
and
are both in
, then
also needs to be in
.
The relation
(on
) in this question is indeed reflexive.
,
, and
(one pair for each element of
) are all elements of
.
isn't symmetric.
but
(the pairs in
are all ordered.) In other words,
isn't equivalent to
under
even though
.
Neither is
transitive.
and
. However,
. In other words, under relation
,
and
does not imply
.
Answer:
64
Step-by-step explanation:
SInce the students at the door had to pay twice as much as the students who payed in advance, you would do 32*2=64
7^2 +6 ^2= 85
Square root of 85 = 9.219544457
Answer : 9.2
The correct answer is the first one(a): To get the system B,..., the first equation multiplied by 4...
Explanation:
1. Let us first multiple the first equation in System A with 4, we would get:
4(2x - y) = 4 * 3
=> 8x - 4y = 12 --- (A)
Now add the equation (A) and the second equation of System A:
8x - 4y = 12
3x + 4y = 10
------------------
11x = 22
Hence,
System B:
2x - y = 3
11x = 22
-i
Answer:
4:10.
Step-by-step explanation:
4:10 would be one.