18000
Some would say 19000 but if you want to know why not, read on. Consider the related question of rounding 18.5 to the nearest whole number, 18 or 19. Some people advise you to round up 0.5. Others say round down. The problem with that approach is as follows:
In the first case
If the number is 0.0 you don't need to round
If the number is 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 or 0.4 you round down
If the number is 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 or 0.9 you round up
So 4 downs and 5 ups (and one no change).
Net Result: you introduce an upward bias.
In the second scenario, you introduce a downward bias through rounding.
Possible solution:
Round up from 0.5 half the time, round down the other half. That satisfies the bias problem but introduces another - that of reproducibility. If someone else were to look at your data would they round up/down the same way you did? Unlikely. You need a system which will round 0.5 up half the time and down half the time but where the decision is made for you.
Hence the best solution is to round up or down so that the new last digit is even.
It is 127,000 rounded to the nearest thousand
5.65689 to the nearest thousand is 0
Round 3254687 to nearest thousands
3388 rounded to the nearest thousand is 3000
816,710 rounded to the nearest thousand is 817,000
18000
To the nearest thousand, 703,814 is 704,000 To the nearest million, 73,000,814 is 73,000,000
To the nearest thousand, 703,814 is 704,000 To the nearest million, 73,000,814 is 73,000,000
Round 27,647 to the nearest thousand.
6400
round 68.2467 to the nearest thousand
It is already rounded to the nearest thousand.
To the nearest thousand, it is 1000.
9895 to the nearest thousand is 10,000
It is 33,000 to the nearest thousand.
It is 127,000 rounded to the nearest thousand
5.65689 to the nearest thousand is 0