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
.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement in the above question is True.
Sum of three prime numbers (other than two) is always odd.
Going by Christian Goldbach number theory ,
- Goldbach stated that every odd whole number greater than 5 can be written as sum of three prime numbers .
Lets take an example,
- 3 + 3 + 5 = 11
- 3 + 5 + 5 = 13
- 5 + 5 + 7 = 17
Later on in 2013 the Mathematician <u>Harald Helfgott</u> proved this theory true for all odd numbers greater than five.
Answer:
ok brainliest pls
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
78=p
$150
$20
6 bowls
Step-by-step explanation:
Latus rectum is the line segment that passes through the focus, is perpendicular to the axis, and has both endpoints on the curve.
<span />