5 is how u estamate the number 3
3
To the nearest whole number, 3
2.5 to the nearest whole number is 3.
over 3 trillion
because if you were finding the estimate of 6-3 it wouldn't be 54853 it would be a smaller number
The best estimate for 83.74 plus 2.93 can be found by rounding each number to the nearest whole number. Rounding 83.74 to the nearest whole number gives us 84, and rounding 2.93 to the nearest whole number gives us 3. Adding these rounded numbers together gives us an estimate of 84 + 3 = 87.
to estimate with mixed numbers, round the numbers to the nearest whole number. example 3,1/3+1,1/2+1,3/4=7 you would round 3 in 1/3 to a 3 and the 1 in 1/2 to a 2 and then the 1 in 3/4 to a 2 which equals 7 total.
No, 3 is not a good estimate for 3.4 times 0.09. To estimate the product of 3.4 and 0.09, you can round each number to the nearest whole number, which would be 3 and 0 respectively. Multiplying 3 by 0 gives you 0, which is significantly different from the actual product of 3.4 times 0.09, which is 0.306.
The front end estimate is 2000. But estimating a single number, in isolation and without context, is a complete waste of time. It all comes down to the context of what needs to be done with the number.If I had to add 1600 to 1 trillion, I would estimate it as 0.If I had to add 1600 to 0.0000000001, I would use the number as given. If I had to divide it by 30, I would estimate it as 1590, because 1590/30 = 159/3 = 53. If I had to divide it by 33, I would estimate the answer as follows:1600/33 = 1600/(100/3) = 1600*(3/100) = (1600/100)*3 = 16*3 = 48.[exact answer = 48.4848... ]
i would say they way to get the ballpark estimate is by taking the number. and see what is the estimate for that number and then you take that estimated number and then add to get your answer .
3 x 5 = 15
Impossible. Anything divided by 1 is itself.