The proposition in the question is simply not true so there can be no answer!
For example, if given the integer 6:
there are no two perfect squares whose sum is 6,
there are no two perfect squares whose difference is 6,
there are no two perfect squares whose product is 6,
there are no two perfect squares whose quotient is 6.
8081 can be the sum of two perfect squares because its perfect squares are 41 x41+80x80=1681+6400. Answer=1681+6400
3 is the smallest integer that cannot be written as the sum of two squares. This is easy to see, since the only squares less than or equal to 3 are 0 and 1.
That the set of perfect squares is closed under multiplication. That is if x and y are any two perfect squares, then x*y is a perfect square.
There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.
No.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theorem
yes..always a perfect square A perfect square is the product of an integer by itself. If you multiply a perfect square x² by another perfect square y² you get x²y² = x·x·y·y = x·y·x·y = (x·y)² which is a perfect square. Note that the product of two integers will also be an integer so x·y must be an integer because if x² and y² are perfect squares x must be an integer and y must be an integer and x·y is therefore a product of 2 integers.
A perfect square is a square of an integer.The set of integers is closed under multiplication. That means that the product of any two integer is an integer. Therefore the square of an integer is an integer.Integers are rational numbers so the square [which is an integer] is a rational number.
8081 can be the sum of two perfect squares because its perfect squares are 41 x41+80x80=1681+6400. Answer=1681+6400
Two. 36, and 49 are perfect squares.
This is when two perfect squares(ex.) [x squared minus 4] a question in which there are two perfect squares. you would find the square root of each. then it depends on what kind of math your doing.
3 is the smallest integer that cannot be written as the sum of two squares. This is easy to see, since the only squares less than or equal to 3 are 0 and 1.
That the set of perfect squares is closed under multiplication. That is if x and y are any two perfect squares, then x*y is a perfect square.
There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.There is no pair of perfect squares that sums to 21. And the question is pointless if it is not about perfect squares because in that case there are infinitely many answers.
There are 90 two-digit numbers from 10 to 99. Of those, 6 are perfect squares (16, 25, 36, 49, 64, and 81) and 2 are perfect cubes (27 and 64). Each perfect square or root has a probability of 1 in 90 in being drawn.
No.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theorem
4 and 25.
64 and 36.