Step-by-step explanation:
To go from A to M you need to go 4 to the right and 3 down. If M is the middle you'll need to do the same to get from M to B. So (2+4,-2-3)=(6,-5)
the answer is 21ft because the total is 35feet so 35 - 14 = 21
Ken spent $2.37 on groceries and $0.35 on candy, and paid for them with a 5 dollar bill.
To find how much money Ken spent, we add up how much he spent on groceries and candy
Total amount spent = 2.37+0.35= $2.72
Since he paid with a 5 dollar bill, we need to subtract it from how much he spent to find the change
Change = 5 - 2.72 = $2.28
Ken got $2.28 in change.
To fill the boxes, it would be
$
2.
2
8
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 
.
