Because that is how a rational number is defined!
Yes, that is how a rational number is defined.
In integer division, you expect the result to be an integer. Anything left over will be quoted as a remainder. The more commonly used division (not integer division) will continue calculating decimals, up to the desired accuracy.
It looks to be the same name.
Because division by zero is not defined and if the denominator were zero, we would be dividing by zero.
Because that is how a rational number is defined!
Because that is how a rational number is defined!
Yes, that is how a rational number is defined.
No. In fact, the reciprocal of 0 is not defined.
In integer division, you expect the result to be an integer. Anything left over will be quoted as a remainder. The more commonly used division (not integer division) will continue calculating decimals, up to the desired accuracy.
It looks to be the same name.
Because division by zero is not defined and if the denominator were zero, we would be dividing by zero.
Yes, the square of an integer is always an integer.
An integer is a positive or negative whole number.
If you multiply integers the results is an integer. If you divide integers (with one exception) the result is a rational number which, in some cases, may be an integer. However, the exception is that division by 0 is not defined.
the square of an integer will always be an integer
372 = 1,369 is an integer; therefore, it is a rational number. In fact, the square of any integer is always an integer; this is because the sum or product of any two integers is an integer. And every integer is a rational number; this is because a rational number is defined as the quotient obtained by dividing one integer into another; and because every integer is the quotient obtained by dividing that integer by the integer 1.