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 
.
The answer is A.5% i am not 100% sure thooooo
Answer:
772.4 ft^2
Step-by-step explanation:
find the area of each face. first the slanted rectangle. the dimensions of the slanted rectangle are 21.7ft by 12ft. so the area is 21.7*12=260.4ft^2. for the two triangles on the sides, each on has an area of 20*8.5/2=85. next for the smaller rectangle, the dimensions are 12ft by 8.5ft giving us an area of 102 ft^2. lastly for the base, it has dimensions of 20ft by 12ft giving us an area of 240ft^2. now you just add up all the areas: 260.4+85+85+102+240=772.4 (you might want to check my addition just in case)
Answer: The ratio is 2.39, which means that the larger acute angle is 2.39 times the smaller acute angle.
Step-by-step explanation:
I suppose that the "legs" of a triangle rectangle are the cathati.
if L is the length of the shorter leg, 2*L is the length of the longest leg.
Now you can remember the relation:
Tan(a) = (opposite cathetus)/(adjacent cathetus)
Then there is one acute angle calculated as:
Tan(θ) = (shorter leg)/(longer leg)
Tan(φ) = (longer leg)/(shorter leg)
And we want to find the ratio between the measure of the larger acute angle and the smaller acute angle.
Then we need to find θ and φ.
Tan(θ) = L/(2*L)
Tan(θ) = 1/2
θ = Atan(1/2) = 26.57°
Tan(φ) = (2*L)/L
Tan(φ) = 2
φ = Atan(2) = 63.43°
Then the ratio between the larger acute angle and the smaller acute angle is:
R = (63.43°)/(26.57°) = 2.39
This means that the larger acute angle is 2.39 times the smaller acute angle.
U = ( -8 , -8)
v = (-1 , 2 )
<span>the magnitude of vector projection of u onto v =
</span><span>dot product of u and v over the magnitude of v = (u . v )/ ll v ll
</span>
<span>ll v ll = √(-1² + 2²) = √5
</span>
u . v = ( -8 , -8) . ( -1 , 2) = -8*-1+2*-8 = -8
∴ <span>(u . v )/ ll v ll = -8/√5</span>
∴ the vector projection of u onto v = [(u . v )/ ll v ll] * [<span>v/ ll v ll]
</span>
<span> = [-8/√5] * (-1,2)/√5 = ( 8/5 , -16/5 )
</span>
The other orthogonal component = u - ( 8/5 , -16/5 )
= (-8 , -8 ) - <span> ( 8/5 , -16/5 ) = (-48/5 , -24/5 )
</span>
So, u <span>as a sum of two orthogonal vectors will be
</span>
u = ( 8/5 , -16/5 ) + <span>(-48/5 , -24/5 )</span>
