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 +2 goes on the Y-Axis… From
the 2 count up 3 times and go to the right 2 times
Answer:Jake's total cost is $22.05
Step-by-step explanation:
The initial price of the sweater is $30. The store is having a sell that will reduce the price by 30%. This means that there is a reduction in the original amount of the sweater by 30% which is expressed as
30/100 × 30 = $9
The new price of the sweater would be 30 - 9 = $21
Since a sales tax of 5% will be added to the final purchase price, the value of the tax would be
5/100 × 21 = 0.05×21 = $1.05
Jake's total cost would be
21 + 1.05 = $22.05
Answer:
10x^2+76x+144
Step-by-step explanation: ayo if i helped thank me i hoped i did have a great day