Loading...

No. Every third consecutive natural number is divisible by 3.

No.

That doesn't work. The number has to be divisible by three. Any three consecutive numbers add up to a multiple of three.

5+2+1=8 and 8 is not divisible by 3.

The sum of three consecutive odd numbers must be divisible by 3. As 59 is not wholly divisible by 3 the question is invalid. PROOF : Let the numbers be n - 2, n and n + 2. Then the sum is 3n which is divisible by 3. If the question refers to three consecutive numbers then a similar proof shows that the sum of these three numbers is also divisible by 3. Again, the question would be invalid.

Because in later sequences of three consecutive odd numbers, one of them must be divisible by 3.

Any three consecutive integers are divisible by three because it can be shown that the sum divided by three is the middle number.

2, 3Those two are consecutive, natural and prime numbers! It's as easy as one, two, three! (Pun intended)

Yes, if the first number is odd.

It is a statement of numerical fact.

No, since 2 is not divisible by three in the natural numbers.

If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.

9

The sum of any three consecutive even numbers must be divisible by 3. 32 is not, so there is no solution.

The answer to that question is 49,50,51

There are no three consecutive numbers with a sum of 170.

There must be three consecutive integers to guarantee that the product will be divisible by 6. For the "Product of three consecutive integers..." see the Related Question below.

No. Any three consecutive numbers will have at least one of them which is divisible by 2, which means it cannot be prime. And since 1 is not considered a prime number, it cannot happen.

19, 20, 21

There are no sets of three consecutive numbers totaling 118.

6,12,18.

The number 2 is the only even prime number - all other even numbers are divisible by 2.

There are no three consecutive numbers that are squares. Otherwise, there are an infinite sets of squares of three consecutive numbers: for example, {1,4,9}, or {4,9,16} or {576, 625, 676}

This is no set of three consecutive numbers that when multiplied equal 387.

5 5 5