Algebraically, your question can be posed as, "Is there an integer x such that 23x = 69?"The answer is yes, the integer 3, therefore 69 is a multiple of 23.
The first integer must equal 77 - 69 = 8 , since doubling it increases the sum by this amount. Similarly, the second integer must = 91 - 69 = 22. Then the third integer is 69 - 22 - 8 = 39.
69 is an integer, not a fraction. There is not really a sensible way of writing it as a fraction. However, if you must, you can use (69*k)/k where k is any non-zero integer as an equivalent fraction.
69 times 1881 is 129789, which is an integer, not a fraction.
69 is already a whole number. A whole number is an integer without a fraction.
Algebraically, your question can be posed as, "Is there an integer x such that 23x = 69?"The answer is yes, the integer 3, therefore 69 is a multiple of 23.
The first integer must equal 77 - 69 = 8 , since doubling it increases the sum by this amount. Similarly, the second integer must = 91 - 69 = 22. Then the third integer is 69 - 22 - 8 = 39.
69 is an integer, not a fraction.
69 is an integer and can be expressed in rational form as 69/1. You can then calculate equivalent rational fractions if you multiply both, its numerator and denominator, by any non-zero integer.
69 is an integer and not a fraction. One possible equivalent form is 690/10.
69 is an integer, not a fraction. There is not really a sensible way of writing it as a fraction. However, if you must, you can use (69*k)/k where k is any non-zero integer as an equivalent fraction.
They are 68 and 70
69 is an integer, not a fraction.
It is: 48/69 times 100 = 70% rounded to the nearest integer
69 times 1881 is 129789, which is an integer, not a fraction.
69 is already a whole number. A whole number is an integer without a fraction.
69 is an integer so there is no numerator and denominator to divide!