No. Both are divisible by 5.No. Both are divisible by 5.No. Both are divisible by 5.No. Both are divisible by 5.
35 is divisible by 5 because any number that ends in 5 is divisible by 5.
Yes, 1255 is divisible by 5, and any number that ends in 5 is divisible by 5.
100%= 17005%= 1700/100 x 5= 85
no. Here is a rule to learn- If a number is divisible by 5, it must end in 0 or 5. If it does not, it is not divisible by 5. Numbers that end in 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 are NOT divisible by 5. (Conversely,) if the number does end in 0 or 5 , it is divisible by 6.
1700 is divisible by 850. 850 is not divisible by 1700.
The multiples of 425 (which are infinite) are all divisible by 425 , including these: 425, 850, 1275, 1700, 2125, 2550, 2975 . . .
Yes.
No.
Yes, the result is 425.
1600 was a leap year. 1700 and 1800 were not because they were not divisible by 400. If a year is divisible by 100, but not by 400, then it is not a leap year. That is the rules of a leap year. So 1600 was, but 1700, 1800 and 1900 were not; 2000 was and 2100 will not be.
No. Both are divisible by 5.No. Both are divisible by 5.No. Both are divisible by 5.No. Both are divisible by 5.
850 and 1700
YES. 285 is divisible by 5. A number is divisible by 5 if it ends with 0 or 5
35 is divisible by 5 because any number that ends in 5 is divisible by 5.
Yes, 1255 is divisible by 5, and any number that ends in 5 is divisible by 5.
It's false because we have numbers that is divisible by 10 but not divisible by 5 and vice versa, we have numbers that is divisible by 10 but not divisible by 5.