the answer is definitly 0 (zero)!
196 is a perfect square. Since the area of a square is equal to the square of the measure of the length of its side, the side length will be the square root of 196, which is 14 ft.
2.
30 is not a perfect square. Its square root is a fraction and the square root of a perfect square is always an integer.
500 is not a perfect square. Its square root is a fraction and the square root of a perfect square is always an integer.
81
16
1
64 8*8=64 2^6=64
No, 2 is neither a perfect square nor a perfect cube.
128 is neither a perfect square nor a perfect cube, it is 2⁷ (2 to the 7th power).
To be a perfect square, a number must have a square root that evaluates to an integer. The square root of 2 is approximately equal to 1.414, thus it is not a perfect square.
To be a perfect square, all the primes in a number's prime factorisation must have an even power To be a perfect cube, all the primes in a number's prime factorisation must a power that is a multiple of 3 → To be a perfect square, all the primes in a number's prime factorisation must a power that is a multiple of 3 and a multiple of 2, ie the power must be a multiple of 6 The smallest prime is 2 2⁶ = 64 = (2³)² = 8² = (2²)³ = 4³ 2¹² = 4096 (too large) 3⁶ = 729 (too large) There is also 1 = 1² = 1³ Thus the whole numbers less than 100 which are both perfect squares and perfect cubes are 1 and 64.
No. Though every perfect square is a rational number, not every rational number is a perfect square. Example: 2 is a rational number but sqrt(2) is not rational, so 2 is not a perfect square.
It is not possible for a perfect square to have just 2 terms.
0. 0 is a perfect square as well as a perfect cube. And 011 = 0. The next number will be 1.
Any integer ,n, to the 6th. power would be both a perfect square and a perfect cube: This is because (n2 )3 =n6 which is a perfect square and a perfect cube. Or course you could also write this as (n3 )2 =n6 06 = 0 16 = 1 26 = 64 etc.