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 
.
Y=8.50x+5.00
56=y
-56=8.50x+5.00
56=8.50x+5.00
-5.00 -5.00
51=8.50x
÷8.5 ÷8.5
6=x <u>HE CAN BUY 6 DVDS</u>
The equation that works for this is
y=1/7x + 0! It is parallel and goes through (0,0)
Hope this helps :)
Step-by-step explanation:
Slope=9
i)
When line is parallel
y+5=9(x-6)
y+5 = 9x - 54
<h3>59 = 9x-y </h3>
When line is perpendicular
y+5=-1/9(x-6)
9(y+5)= -1(x-6)
9y + 45 = -x+6
<h3>
x+9y = -39</h3>
<h2>
MARK ME AS BRAINLIST </h2>
