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:
For example, slide ∠ 1 down the transversal and it will coincide with ∠2. are equal in measure. If two parallel lines are cut by a transversal, the corresponding angles are congruent. If two lines are cut by a transversal and the corresponding angles are congruent, the lines are parallel.
Step-by-step explanation:
I am not going to give you the answer, but I am going to tell you how to do it. You first put 18 over 1, and multiply that by one half. (You multiply across.)
Answer:
In what article are you most likely to find the sentence “The coma streamed out until it formed a tail of dust and light”?
“Comets in the Sky”
“How to Punctuate Sentences”
“Water Under the Bridge”
“Medical Histories”
Step-by-step explanation:
