Final answer:
The 'equation' 3-20 provided does not represent lines, and further clarification is needed to discuss parallelism. If pertaining to physics concepts of magnetic fields or electric potentials, the term 'parallel' would relate to the arrangement and interactions of physical entities, not geometric lines.
Step-by-step explanation:
It appears there may be a confusion or typo with the 'equation' 3-20 as it stands, it does not represent a line or a pair of lines. Typically, to discuss parallel lines, we would need equations in a standard form, for example, y=mx+b, where 'm' represents the slope and 'b' the y-intercept. Two lines are considered parallel if they have the same slope, 'm', but different y-intercepts, 'b'. To provide a more accurate response, the correct linear equations would be needed.
Considering the reference material, the context is related to physics principles, such as magnetic fields around parallel wires (Example 65) or the junction rule (Example 35), rather than lines in a geometric sense. If the question pertains to parallel electrical conductors or equipotential lines, then the idea of parallel could be addressed in terms of the physical layout and the resulting electric or magnetic field interactions.