not it is not
This would be impossible - since the mean of the three integers would have to be an integer, and if you divide -56 by 3, you do not get an integer.
The reciprocal of any integer x is equal to 1/x. In this instance, expressed as a proper fraction, the reciprocal of 56 is equal to 1/56.
1. let n = the odd integer then n + 2 must be the next odd integer 2. n + (n + 2) = 56 3. 2n + 2 = 56 4. 2n = 54 5. n = 27 6. 27 + 2 = 29 is the next odd integer
Assuming the seventh integer multiple, the answer is 56.
From lowest to highest: -56 -0.462 0 0.326 735 8321
No, it isn't an integer.
56 is an integer and not a fraction. However, it can be expressed in rational form as (56*k)/k where k is an integer.
-56 is an integer so there is no fractional part.
The greatest factor of any integer is the integer itself.
56 + 34 = 90 is an integer, not a fraction.
56 is an integer, not a fraction and there is no sensible way to express it as a fraction.
56 is an integer and not a fraction. However, it can be expressed in rational form as 56/1 which cannot be simplified.
This would be impossible - since the mean of the three integers would have to be an integer, and if you divide -56 by 3, you do not get an integer.
The numbers that are divisible by 56 are in the form 56k where k is the integer constant.
No. The square root of a positive integer can only be an integer, or an irrational number.
They are (1, 56), (2, 28), (4, 14) and (7, 8).
56 is an integer and so there is not really a sensible way of writing it as a fraction or mixed number.