The decimal is 95, exactly as in the question. 95 is an integer, not a fraction. But, if you must express it as a fraction, it is 95/1.
No, 3.4 is not an integer. It is a rational number and a real number, but not an integer.
Every integer is a rational number.
Unless the integer is fractional it is not an irrational number.
No, an integer is a whole number, 53.11 is not a whole number. Thus, 53.11 is not an integer.
95 is an integer and there is no sensible representation as a mixed number.
Since 95 is positive, its square root is real. Only negative numbers have non-real square roots. That leaves the question of whether it is rational or irrational. An integer's square root can only be rational if it is itself an integer. But 95 is not a perfect square, so it's square root is not an integer. Therefore the square root is irrational.
The decimal is 95, exactly as in the question. 95 is an integer, not a fraction. But, if you must express it as a fraction, it is 95/1.
No, 3.4 is not an integer. It is a rational number and a real number, but not an integer.
A rational number which is an integer can be simplified to a form in which the denominator is 1. That is not possible for a rational number which is not an integer.
The number 14.5 is a decimal and not an integer. An integer is any number which is a whole number.
Every integer is a rational number.
It depends, if a number with positive integers is greater than the number with the negative integer therefore the sum will be in positive integer. And if the number with positive integer is less than the number with the number with negative integer then the sum will be in negative integer.
No, it is a decimal number.
Unless the integer is fractional it is not an irrational number.
A decimal number is not an integer. An integer is a number that is not a fraction, and decimal numbers are decimal fractions.
No, an integer is a whole number, 53.11 is not a whole number. Thus, 53.11 is not an integer.