No. There is no number n, such that the sum of the first n consecutive integers is 1,000. Here's why: Let S = S(n) = 1 + 2 + 3 + . . . + n. Then, S = n(n + 1) / 2. There are several ways you can derive this formula; but you might find it helpful to refer to this: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ArithmeticSeries.html or any of a large number of similar sources. (I tried Wiki, but down-loading took forever!) If you know S(n) (in this case, 1,000) and wish to find n, you have only to solve: n² + n = 2S = 2000. This is not readily factorised; but we can try completing the square: 2S = n² + n = 2,000; whence, n² + n + ¼ = (n + ½)² = 2,000¼, and n = √2,000.25 - 0.5. To the nearest integer, n = 44, approximately; but this is inexact, of course. Let's see what happens when we try this result. We get 2S(44) = n² + n = 44 * 45 = 1,980; whence, S(45) = 990, which is just a little too small; and any n smaller than 44 would give an S(n) that is even smaller. You can easily check this result, if you like: 1 + 2 + 3 + . . . + 22 + 23 + . . . + 42 + 43 + 44 = (1 + 44) + (2 + 43) + (3 + 42) + . . . + (22 + 23) {this makes 22 pairs, each adding up to 45.} = 45 * 22 = 990. On the other hand, S(45) = S(44) + 45 = 990 + 45 = 1,035, which is just a little too large; and any n larger than 45 would give an S(n) that is even larger. We may conclude, then, that no integer n satisfies the requirement that we have placed on it.
-4, -2, 0, and 2 are the four consecutive even integers. When you add them up they equal -4.
generally you would multiply a number by itself, but i have found out a marvelous trick, and it is pretty easy since I am only a child, but starting with 1, if you add three, you get four, the next square number. then you add five to get nine the next square number, then seven to get sixteen and so on. So in simpler terms you take one and add three to get the next square number, then add five, then seven counting by odd numbers. Here is an equation. the bold numbers are the square numbers and the Italic numbers are the progressing odd numbers.1+3= 4+5= 9+7=16and so on.
There are many pairs of numbers that add of to 64. One is (1,63), and the product is 63. Another is (2,62), and the product is 124. There seems to be something missing from the question, perhaps some constraint on the product. Please restate the question.
To find the mean of a set of numbers, you add all the numbers together and then divide by the total number of values. In this case, the sum of 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 is 5.4. Dividing 5.4 by 4 (the total number of values) gives you a mean of 1.35.
I'm assuming this is supposed to say: "What are three consecutive integers that add together to equal 171?"This could also be "What are three consecutive integers that multiply together to equal 171?"I will do both.For the addition caseThink of "three consecutive integers" as the expressions x, x+1, and x+2. For any value of x, these three expressions will give that number, the number that is one greater than it, and the number that is two greater than it. So, the expression x+(x+1)+(x+2) is the general sum of three consecutive integers. Also possible is the expression x+(x-1)+(x-2), which are still three consecutive integers. So, this is a simple equation:x+(x+1)+(x+2)=171x+x+1+x+2=1713x+3=1713x=168x=168/3x=56Since x=56, x+1=57 and x+2=58So the three numbers are 56,57,and 58You can check this answer by adding the three numbers together. I'll bet they equal 171.For the multiplication case:Refer to the explanation for the addition case, but instead of the end expression being x+(x+1)+(x+2), it is now the multiplication of the three integers, meaning the expression is (x)(x+1)(x+2), so we get: (x)(x+1)(x+2)=171(x)(x2+3x+2)=171x3+3x2+2x=171I'll admit right now I don't know a simple way to solve this equation, which hints to me that addition was the intent of the question, but this equation can be solved by plotting the equationsy=x3+3x2+2xy=171and finding their point(s) of intersection. The value comes out to be approximately 4.6106, which means that the numbers 4.6106, 5.6106, and 6.6106 will multiply to equal approximately 171 (but not exactly). No exact answer is really possible here.
3003
3003
1003
Assume that the consecutive numbers are: x, x+1, x+2, x+3 Then: x + x+1 + x+2 + x+3 = 1000 4x + 6 = 1000 4x = 1000 - 6 = 994 x = 248.5 The numbers are: 248.5, 249.5, 250.5, 251.5
16,25,36 add to 77. They are the squares of consecutive numbers 4,5,6
Consecutive whole numbers will have an odd sum. Consecutive odd numbers, or consecutive prime numbers, will be 29 and 31.
There are no four consecutive whole numbers that add up to 35. The sum of two consecutive [whole] numbers is an even number plus an odd number which is an odd number. The sum of two consecutive numbers and the two next consecutive numbers is the sum of two odd numbers which is even, but 35 is odd, so no four consecutive whole numbers cannot add up to 35.
The consecutive numbers that have a sum of 257 are 128 and 129.
There are no two consecutive numbers that add or multiply to 102.
94 = 22 + 23 + 24 + 25Four consecutive numbers that add to 94 are 25,26,27,28.
3332, 3333 and 3334 add up to 9999 - there are no three consecutive numbers that add up to 10,000.
3, 5 and 7 are consecutive odd prime numbers.