469 and 28 but 369 is also are perfect.1+1+1=3 and 1+2=3 after 1+2+1=4 and 2+2=4 after 1+2+3=6 and 2+2+2=6 and 3+3=6 after 2+3+4=9 and 3+3+3=9.
2
No, it is not a natural number. It is not a whole, positive integer.
It is a negative whole number which is the same as an integer
-13 is rational and an integer.
the greatest number that is an integer and rational number but is not a natural or whole number is -1
0.33333 is a real number.
There is some disagreement as to whether zero, a whole number, belongs to the set of natural numbers.
Any negative integer, for example -3, is one of infinitely many such numbers.
A negative integer is a whole number but not a natural number.
An integer and a whole number are the same, by definition.
No, it is not a natural number. It is not a whole, positive integer.
It's any negative integer: -1, -65, -1,000,000. Any negative integer is an example of an integer that is not a whole number.
3.5 is real, rational, and natural. It's not irrational, integer, or whole.
A whole number is one without a decimal or fraction, and a natural number is any positive integer, so this is both a whole number and an integer.
The square root of 25 is 5, which is a whole number, an integer, a natural number and a rational number.
It is a whole number.
Every whole number is rational and an integer. But the "natural" numbers are definedas the counting numbers, so the negative whole numbers wouldn't qualify.No and yes: it is not a natural number but it is a rational number.
It is rational, whole, integer and real but not natural nor irrational.