No, an integer n can be expressed as a ratio: n/1. It is, therefore, rational.
The product of any nonzero real number and its reciprocal is the number 1. This can be mathematically given as n multiplied by 1/n, where n represents the nonzero real number. The product of these two terms is 1.
if n is a number, n/3 is 1/3 of the number
(1/sq rt 5)((1+sq rt 5)/2)n - (1/sq rt 5)((1-sq rt 5)/2)n This is based on the golden ratio (1+sq rt 5)/2) because the ratio of 2 Fibonacci terms approaches the golden ratio as the 2 terms used get larger. IE the ratio ot the 10th term to the 9th term is 55/34 = 1.61765 and the golden ratio is approx. 1.61803. When using this formula if your calculator does not round, you will round to get the appropriate Fibonacci number.
If x(n) represents the nth number is the sequence x(n+1)=x(n)*(x(n)+1) So the next number in the sequence is 1086*(1086+1)=3263442
No it cannot. Any whole number, n, can be written as the ratio n/1 where n is an integer. Since it can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, it is rational and so cannot be irrational.
a+a*r+a*r^2+...+a*r^n a = first number r = ratio n = "number of terms"-1
5/N, where N is the unspecified number.
A whole number n can be written as n/1. In that form, it is expressed as a ratio of two integers and so represents a rational number.
No, an integer n can be expressed as a ratio: n/1. It is, therefore, rational.
The ratio of oxygen to hydrogen in a polysaccharide is independent of the type of monosaccharides that it consists of. The ratio does not depend on the number of carbons in the monosaccharide. Thus, for all polysaccharide compounds the ratio of hydrogen to oxygen is 2:1.
yes!Any number that can be expressed as a ratio (or fraction) of two non-zero integers is a rational number.So a whole number (n), can be expressed as (n/1)
n/50
1- n/p ratio where n is number of neutron and p number of proton 2-shell model 3-binding energy
The common ratio is the ratio of the nth term (n > 1) to the (n-1)th term. For the progression to be geometric, this ratio must be a non-zero constant.
As N approaches infinity the ratio of squares less than N to numbers with 4 factors less than N approaches 0. This means that in the customary way of defining it, the ratio you're interested in is 0 (although that should be taken with a grain of salt - it certainly doesn't mean that there are 0 square numbers). The number of squares less than N is approximately √N. Rather than calculating the ratio we're interested in, we're going to calculate a calculate a ratio guaranteed to be greater: the ratio of squares to numbers that are twice a prime number (which are some, but not all, of the numbers with 4 factors). There are approximately N/ln N prime numbers less than N, by the prime number theorem. So there are N/(2 ln N/2) prime numbers less than N/2, which can be doubled to get a number less than N that's twice a prime number. The ratio is therefore √N(2 ln N/2)/N, which is O(ln N/√N). √N grows much faster than ln N, and in the limit this ratio will get close to zero. So the ratio we're actually interested in, which is even less than this ratio, will also approach zero.
A geometric sequence is a sequence of a number in which the ratio of any number (other than the first) to its predecessor (the one before) is a constant.if t(k) is the kth term in the sequence thent(1), the seed, is given and then,t(n) = r*t(n-1) where r is the common ratio.