That is false. This type of statement is only true for prime numbers, not for compound numbers such as 6. Counterexample: 2 x 3 = 6
The statement cannot be proven because it is FALSE. If one of x and y is odd and the other is even then x2 + y2 MUST be odd. Also if x and y are even then x2 + y2 MUST be divisible by 4. The statement is only true if x and y are odd integers. Whether or not they are positive makes little difference.
27 for one then there's 36, 45, 54, 18 in short, any number divisible by 9 is also divisible by 3
The integers are 99, 100 and 101. There is also a set of consecutive even integers whose sum is 300. That set is 98, 100 and 102.
positive integers
The set is 81, 82 and 83. There is also a set of consecutive even integers whose sum is 246. That set is 80, 82 and 84.
It is divisible by their factors. It is also divisible by their product.
8 of them.
The statement cannot be proven because it is FALSE. If one of x and y is odd and the other is even then x2 + y2 MUST be odd. Also if x and y are even then x2 + y2 MUST be divisible by 4. The statement is only true if x and y are odd integers. Whether or not they are positive makes little difference.
Integers divisible by 8 have their last 3 digits divisible by 8. So: 2934829387957008 is divisible by 8 because the last three digits are divisible by 8 (008 / 8 = 1). 2348012934801298304400 is also (400 / 8 = 50). 123006 is not (006 / 8 = 0.75).
Talking in Integers only, then no. Example, 3 is not divisible by 6. Talking all natural numbers... then yes. 3 / 6 = 0.5
Yes. All numbers rationally divisible by 4 are also rationally divisible by 2.All numbers that when divided by 4 result in answers that are integers will also give answers that are integers when divided by 2, and so forth.For example: Let x/4=p,x/2=2.(x/4)=>x/2=2p.from the above illustration,it is clear that all the multiples of 4 are the multiples of 2.hence every number which is divisible by 4 is divisible by 2.
18
1. 0 because it has to be a divisible by 5 also it has to be divisible by 2.
False. The question consists of two parts: - a number is divisible by 6 if it is divisible by 3? False. It must also be divisible by 2. - a number is divisible by 6 only if it is divisible by 3? This is true but the false part makes the whole statement false.
13 and 14. Also negative 13 and negative 14.
There are no numbers that are divisible by 21 but not by 7 so the "or 21" part of the question can be ignored.There are 166 numbers between 1 and 1000 that are divisible by 6. However, 23 of those are also divisible by 7.So 166 - 23 = 143 numbers.
Product disparagement is an untrue statement about a product that causes harm to the product maker. Product disparagement is also called trade libel, product defamation, slander of goods, or commercial disparagement.