this doesn't make sense
because you have to multiply to break it down into a smaller number
Number Sense uses various operations that are not always taught. For example to multiply something by 25 you can divided by 4 then move the decimal over 2 places because 25 = 100/4. According to University of Texas Number Sense Contest Directors; Number Sense ---- The ability to work quickly with numbers and solve problems in your head without the use of other materials.
multiply by the reciprocal of the whole number
these 0's are place holders. if 305 is 3 5 then it won't make any sense.
Merely adding a decimal point after a number does not change its value, and in fact it should be omitted, unless one or more digits follow. For example, "4.0" indicates that the number is accurate to one additional decimal place, while "4.00" is accurate to two additional places, and so on (although the value is still 4). However, "4." (decimal point without any digits following) only makes sense at the end of sentence, thus the point should be removed.
25 can be either the product of 1 and 25, or the product of 5 and 5. Since there are two digits in the number, the answer can only be 55. This makes sense, since 55 is divisible by 5, and the product of 5 and 5 is 25.
The concept of place value is relevant only for digits within a number, not for entire numbers. The question, therefore, makes no sense.
A US Billion* has 9 digits following the leading digits (64 being the leading digits in this case.)So 64.1 billion dollars = $64,100,000,000Notice that if you count the number of digits after 64 there are 9Note*: A billion in some other countries is actually a million million (or having 12 digits after the leading digits.) For finance this magnitude of number does not make sense (it's much too large,) and instead the US Billion is used.
this question doesnt make sense
When you multiply two numbers greater than one, you create many groups of a given number, so the result is greater than either the number of groups or the number you created many groups of. When you multiply a number by a number less than one, you create less than one group of a given number. If you create only part of one group of a given number, it makes sense that the result will be less than the number you started with.
All its digits are decimal digits so the question makes no sense.
Zero is itself a digit so the question does not really make sense. However, the non-zero digits are older than zero. For example, consider the Roman number system which had no zero.
15.54 is rounded to 2 decimal places and it makes little sense to express a number from 2 dp to 3 dp but, since you have asked, the answer is 15.540
You can multiply the numbers, but when you multiply the units, it doesn't seem to make much sense, physically. Square meters or cubic meters makes sense, but I doubt square ounces are used (at least by themselves) as a physical unit. Practical problems will like multiply a pure number with a number of ounces - for example, 5 boxes each with a weight of 10 ounces: (5) x (10 ounces). Result will be in ounces, not square ounces, in this case.
35% is the same as 35/100, or .35. Therefore, you simply multiply .35 by the number that you want to find 35% of. For example, 35% of 20=.35x20=7. This makes sense, because if you multiply both numbers by 5, you get 35 and 100.
Using the word "combinations" in the English sense (as opposed to mathematical sense the expert has used) where it often used in the mathematical sense of the word "permutations": Assuming the hundreds digit must be at least 1 (eg 99 = 099 is not considered a three digit number), then: 9 x 10 x 10 = 900.
In what sense are you speaking of because one hundred is un cent and two hundred is deux cent and so on with the digits from 1 to 9 until one thousand which is un mil
A decimal (ex. 0.2) can have any amount of digits after the decimal (ex. 0.222222334) Think about the tens, hundreds, thousands places. A number in the tens place has two digits. A number in the hundreds place has three digits, and thousands has three. However, the tenths (NOT tens) place is written after a decimal with one digit after it. (ex. 0.1) Hundredthshas two digits after the decimal, and so on. An easy way to remember how many digits are after the decimal is to think of the base number in the tenths place, the so called "base" word is ten, and the number 10 has one zero, so in the tenths place there is one digit after the decimal. In the hundredths place, the base word is hundred, and there are two zeros after the hundreds, so a number in the hundredths place has to have two zeros after the decimal, and so on.Helpful Hint: The number after the decimal can be any number, except you cannot end a decimal with a zero if you are writing something in a place smaller than that (if this doesn't really make sense, read the example following). A number in the hundredths place - 0.02 or 0.42 A number in the thousandths place - 0.002, 0.426, 0.411, 0.053 NOT - A number in the thousandths place - 0.030 This is actually 0.03, so it is in the hundreds place. A zero after the last number greater than 0 doesn't have a value!Hope this helps!
This question doesn't quite make sense; a prime number has no factors.If you meant a prime whose digits sum to 10 it is 37.
a number of senses put together gives a common sense....
The probability of selecting an irrational number from the set of all real numbers (selected randomly) is unity (100%). Let me explain: consider selecting the real number by selecting a series of digits. select each digit randomly and creating a number, say from zero to one by putting a decimal place on the far left of the digits. Selecting more and more of those digits means we are selecting from more and more of the real numbers. The limit as our selection approaches infinity is a real number that is picked from any real number (between 0 and 1). A rational number is one whose digits end up repeating the same pattern thus being able to be written as a fraction. An irrational number is a real number that is not rational. So with those two ideas one could think of picking a random real number by picking successive digits and figuring the odds of getting a repeating sequence would get more and more absurd as one picked more and more digits. Think of it as your winning lottery number being picked not twice but an infinite amount of times (with no other picks in between). That would be the chance of your pick being rational. That being said the ability to fairly choose a real number from all the possible choices is very difficult since one needs to choose an infinite amount of digits. If one gets bored and stops before an infinite amount of digits is chosen, the resulting number is rational (since it has an infinite amount of repeating zeros on the end of the number). So in that sense your chances of picking an actual irrational number are the same as your chances of picking an infinite digit random number.
This question doesn't make sense. Please choose your words wisely.
Your question doesn't make any sense. 13 % of 79? Simply multiply .13(move decimal 2 places to left) by 79 79 * .13 = 10.27