Infinitely many in both cases.
No. Integers are positive and negative whole numbers (…, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, …). As there are an infinite number of negative integers as they approach negative infinity (the greatest negative integer being -1), there can be no smallest (negative) integer.
1 is the smallest positive integer. But if you include negative integers, there is no smallest.
The smallest positive integer is 1. 1 is the multiplicative identity; ie anything times 1 is itself. The greatest negative integer is the most positive negative integer which is -1. Therefore the product of the greatest negative integer and the smallest positive integer is the greatest negative integer which is -1.
The set of negative integers is {-1, -2, -3, ...}. The greatest negative integer is -1. From there the numbers progress toward negative infinity. There are an infinite number of negative integers as they approach negative infinity. So there is no smallest negative integer. -1
The sum of the smallest 15 positive integers is 120. The sum of the smallest 15 negative integers is -120.
For x, which is the largest integer of nconsecutive positive integers of which the smallest is m:x = m + n - 1
1,3,5,7
The positive integers are {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...}. The smallest one is 1.
For positive integers, 1 is.
-1: Negative integers become smaller as their absolute value increases. Therefore, the first negative integer is the smallest. This answer assumes that -0 is excluded because 0 is neither positive nor negative.
Integers are numbers that are not followed by decimals, so they are "complete" numbers. Numbers below zero are not positive, and zero itself is neither positive nor negative, so positive integers are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on. 1 is the smallest number of these, so it is the least positive integer.
Of the positive integers, 4 is.