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 
.
Find two pefect lines that touches the middle then do rise over run and that will be your slope
Sometimes the outlier, if it's too large, can throw off the mean, making it larger and smaller, so it isn't as accurate
sorry if this doesnt make sense if you need me to explain it more I will
