No. 1.68 is not a natural number or a whole number.
"Natural" numbers are the counting numbers . . . one, two, three, four . . .
1.68 is not one of them.
"Whole" numbers are the integers . . . the natural numbers, their negatives, and zero.
1.68 isn't one of those either.
About all you can say for 1.68 is that it's positive, it's mixed, and it's rational.
To the nearest whole number, 168
Any of its factors
Yes, a natural number is always a whole number.for ex- 1 is a natural no. And is a whole no. Too.in fact every natural no. Is a whole no.
55
168 is a multiple of 7 because it can be expressed as the product of 7 and another whole number. Specifically, 168 divided by 7 equals 24, which is an integer. This means that 168 is equal to 7 times 24, confirming that it is indeed a multiple of 7.
No, -168 is not a whole number. Whole numbers are non-negative integers, which means they are positive numbers including zero. Since -168 is a negative number, it does not fall within the definition of a whole number.
To the nearest whole number, 168
Yes.
Any of its factors
Yes, a natural number is always a whole number.for ex- 1 is a natural no. And is a whole no. Too.in fact every natural no. Is a whole no.
55
168 is a multiple of 7 because it can be expressed as the product of 7 and another whole number. Specifically, 168 divided by 7 equals 24, which is an integer. This means that 168 is equal to 7 times 24, confirming that it is indeed a multiple of 7.
0 is whole no but not a natural no.
The ratio, in simplest form, is 3.
168.
is a natural number a whole number
No. All natural numbers are whole numbers.