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
.
We can use the coordinates (-4, 5) and (0, 6) to find the slope.
Slope Formula: 
Solve: 
The slope of the line is \Large\boxed{\mathsf{1/4}}
Written in slope-intercept form: y = 1/4x + 6
Hope This Helped! Good Luck!
Answer:
grade=15%
Step-by-step explanation:
For 2 ft on x-axis it has elevated 0.3 ft on y-axis
m=0.3/2=0.15 ft
grade=m x 100
grade=15%
Answer:
fstj56r
Step-by-step explanation:
934uj0t9jgji84545t