Yes and it is: 1790/5 = 358
358
Yes, if x is an integer divisible by 3, then x^2 is also divisible by 3. This is because for any integer x, x^2 will also be divisible by 3 if x is divisible by 3. This can be proven using the property that the square of any integer divisible by 3 will also be divisible by 3.
All numbers divisible by 3 are NOT divisible by 9. As an example, 6, which is divisible by 3, is not divisible by 9. However, all numbers divisible by 9 are also divisible by 3 because 9 is divisible by 3.
Not evenly. A number is divisible by 3 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3.
Yes.
Yes and it is: 1790/5 = 358
Being divisible by 2 and 3: 354 (and 360 if inclusive)Trick:Numbers divisible by 2 always ends with an even number (2,4,6,8,0)So: numbers divisible by 2 strictly between 350 and 360: 352, 354, 356, 358Numbers divisible by 3 have the sum of the digits add up to 3,6,9,12 and so onSince there are only 4 numbers there, just try them one by one352: 3+5+2=10 (not divisible by 3)354: 3+5+4=12 (divisible by 3)356: 3+5+6=14 (not divisible by 3)358: 3+5+8=16 (not divisible by 3)354/2=177354/3=118
1, 2, 5, 10, 179, 358, 895, 1790
358
No, it is divisible by 3.No, it is divisible by 3.No, it is divisible by 3.No, it is divisible by 3.
3.58 = 3 58/100 = 358/100 = 358%
It is divisible by 3, for example.It is divisible by 3, for example.It is divisible by 3, for example.It is divisible by 3, for example.
A number is divisible by 3 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3.
Yes, if x is an integer divisible by 3, then x^2 is also divisible by 3. This is because for any integer x, x^2 will also be divisible by 3 if x is divisible by 3. This can be proven using the property that the square of any integer divisible by 3 will also be divisible by 3.
NO. 313 is not divisible by 3.A number is divisible by 3 if the sum of the digits is divisible by 3.313 = 3 + 1 + 3 = 7Note: 7 not divisible by 3 thus, 313 is not divisible by 3.
3 is not divisible by 126. 126 is divisible by 3.