To find a number that is a perfect cube, take an integer, mulitply it by itself and again. The answer is a perfect cube. Thus n * n * n To find a perfect cube as a 3 dimensional object is not possible. It is a concept that can exist only in your imagination. Any physical representation is bound to have microscopic (or smaller) flaws - certainly at the sub-atomic level.
no it is not 4 is a perfect cube
No, 148 is not a perfect cube.
No, 2 is neither a perfect square nor a perfect cube.
Because they are square/cube of an integer.
To find a number that is a perfect cube, take an integer, mulitply it by itself and again. The answer is a perfect cube. Thus n * n * n To find a perfect cube as a 3 dimensional object is not possible. It is a concept that can exist only in your imagination. Any physical representation is bound to have microscopic (or smaller) flaws - certainly at the sub-atomic level.
no it is not 4 is a perfect cube
If by cube you mean perfect cube (a cube of an integer), then no, and the nearest perfect cube is 81.
No, 148 is not a perfect cube.
No, 2 is neither a perfect square nor a perfect cube.
Because they are square/cube of an integer.
It is both because 1,000,000 is a perfect cube and a perfect square number
A cube root of a perfect cube has only one dimension. A perfect cube is a number that can be obtained by multiplying an integer by itself three times. Taking the cube root of a perfect cube will give you the original integer value, effectively reducing the dimensionality back to one.
There is not a number that is a perfect square and perfect cube between 1 and 25.There is not a number that is a perfect square and perfect cube between 1 and 25.There is not a number that is a perfect square and perfect cube between 1 and 25.There is not a number that is a perfect square and perfect cube between 1 and 25.
Not a perfect cube.
81 is a perfect squarebecause 81 = 9*9. It is NOT a perfect cube.
It is a perfect cube.