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:
first answer:-1.75
second:-15.75
third:-40.25
Step-by-step explanation:i am too lazy srry
Answer:
0.62
Step-by-step explanation:
Height = Volume / πr²
Answer:
(1, 0) and (3, 0)
Step-by-step explanation:
y=2x²-8x+6
x- intercept when y=0
- 2x²-8x+6=0
- x²-4x+4=1
- (x-2)²=1
- x-2=1 ⇒ x= 3
- x-2= -1 ⇒ x= 1