No because 0 doesn't do anything. also, 0 doesn't have any other factor other than 0
Any factor between 0 and 1.
No, for 0 to be a factor, the numbers would have to be divisible by 0. You can't divide any number by 0, so it can't be a factor.1 is a factor of every positive number.
No, a scale factor of a dilation is not always between 0 and 1. A scale factor can be greater than 1, which results in enlargement, or it can be between 0 and 1, leading to a reduction. Additionally, a negative scale factor can invert the figure. Thus, the scale factor can vary widely, affecting the size and orientation of the figure being dilated.
It is not simple. The only systematic way is to find the prime factorisation of the number and write it in exponential form. So suppose n = (p1^r1)*(p2^r2)*...*(pk^rk) where p1, p2, ... pk are prime numbers and rk are the indices (or powers). Then the factors of n are (p1^s1)*(p2^s2)*...*(pk^sk) where 0 ≤ sk ≤ rk. And remember that anything raised to the power 0 is 1. Example: n = 72 = 2*2*2*3*3 = (2^3)*(3^2) so, the factors of n are (2^a)*(3^b) where a = 0, 1, 2 or 3 and b = 0, 1 or 2. When (a, b) = (0, 0) the factor is 1. (a, b) = (1, 0) the factor is 2. (a, b) = (2, 0) the factor is 4. (a, b) = (3, 0) the factor is 8. (a, b) = (0, 1) the factor is 3. (a, b) = (1, 1) the factor is 6. (a, b) = (2, 1) the factor is 12. (a, b) = (3, 1) the factor is 24. (a, b) = (0, 2) the factor is 9. (a, b) = (1, 2) the factor is 18. (a, b) = (2, 2) the factor is 36. (a, b) = (3, 2) the factor is 72.
No. Apart from -1 and 1, no other whole number is a factor of 1.
Any factor between 0 and 1.
No, for 0 to be a factor, the numbers would have to be divisible by 0. You can't divide any number by 0, so it can't be a factor.1 is a factor of every positive number.
No, a scale factor of a dilation is not always between 0 and 1. A scale factor can be greater than 1, which results in enlargement, or it can be between 0 and 1, leading to a reduction. Additionally, a negative scale factor can invert the figure. Thus, the scale factor can vary widely, affecting the size and orientation of the figure being dilated.
0 has no factors and 1 only has 1 factor which is 1.
It is not simple. The only systematic way is to find the prime factorisation of the number and write it in exponential form. So suppose n = (p1^r1)*(p2^r2)*...*(pk^rk) where p1, p2, ... pk are prime numbers and rk are the indices (or powers). Then the factors of n are (p1^s1)*(p2^s2)*...*(pk^sk) where 0 ≤ sk ≤ rk. And remember that anything raised to the power 0 is 1. Example: n = 72 = 2*2*2*3*3 = (2^3)*(3^2) so, the factors of n are (2^a)*(3^b) where a = 0, 1, 2 or 3 and b = 0, 1 or 2. When (a, b) = (0, 0) the factor is 1. (a, b) = (1, 0) the factor is 2. (a, b) = (2, 0) the factor is 4. (a, b) = (3, 0) the factor is 8. (a, b) = (0, 1) the factor is 3. (a, b) = (1, 1) the factor is 6. (a, b) = (2, 1) the factor is 12. (a, b) = (3, 1) the factor is 24. (a, b) = (0, 2) the factor is 9. (a, b) = (1, 2) the factor is 18. (a, b) = (2, 2) the factor is 36. (a, b) = (3, 2) the factor is 72.
No. Apart from -1 and 1, no other whole number is a factor of 1.
Since zero has infinitely many factors, it can be said that any pair of numbers (0,n) - where n is an integer - are a factor pair for zero.1 = 1 * 1
4(x + 1) = 0.
0 is not a factor of any number other than itself. If N is any number, than there is no other number P such that N = 0 * P and that means that 0 is not a factor of N. The only number that is a factor of all numbers is 1.
The factor theorem states that for any polynomial function f(x), if f(a) = 0, then (x-a) is a factor of f(x). Let f(x) = x3-2x2-8x-5. If (x+1) is a factor, then f(-1) = 0. (x+1 = x - (-1)) Input x = -1 into f: (-1)3-2(-1)2-8(-1)-5 f(-1) = -1 -2 + 8 - 5 f(-1) = 0. Since f(-1) = 0, (x+1) is a factor of x3-2x2-8x-5. Q.E.D.
for 1 its 0 and 1 for 2 its o,1,2
the greatest common factor is 1. 34 and 5 have only two common factors 0 and 1. 1 is the greatest factor