Could this be considered an equation? if yes, would the answer provided be correct?

question:

kjhbnhhbkbkhkhkhkjhkkhkkhiyguftdy rycvgbhgftdreszwwzsdxcfgvbhhbgvfcdx szxdcfvgbhnhbgvfcdxszxfcgvhb





step-by-step explanation:

k×j×h×b×n×h×h×b×k×b×k×h×k×h×k×h×k ×j×h×k×k×h×k×k×h×i×y×g×u×f×t×d×y×r× y×c×v×g×b×h×g×f×t×d×r×e×s×z×w×w×z×s ×d×x×c×f×g×v×b×h×h×b×g×v×f×c×d×x×s× z×x×d×c×f×v×g×b×h×n×h×b×g×v×f×c×d×x ×s×z×x×f×c×g×v×h×b=

Find the gradient of f(x,y,z)equals=left parenthesis x squared plus y squared plus z squared right parenthesis superscript negative 1 divided by 2 baseline plus ln left parenthesis x right parenthesis x2+y2+z2−1/2+ln(xyz) at the point left parenthesis negative 2 comma 1 comma negative 2 right parenthesis(−2,1,−2).

Reflect the point (7,0) across the y-axis

Juliana says that she can use the patterns of equivalent ratios in the multiplication table below to write an infinite number of ratios that are equivalent to 6: 10. which statement explains whether juliana is correct? she is correct because she can multiply 6 and 10 by any number to form an equivalent ratio. she is correct because 6: 10 can be written as 1: 2 and there are an infinite number of ratios for 1: 2. she is not correct because the multiplication table does not include multiples of 10. she is not correct because 6: 10 is equivalent to 3: 5 and there are only 9 ratios in the multiplication table that are equivalent to 3: 5.