That is how whole numbers are defined.
Integers are defined as whole numbers.
Yes. That means that the product of two whole numbers is defined, and that it is again a whole number.
The set is well defined. Whether or not a given integer belongs to the set of prime numbers is clearly defined even if, for extremely large numbers, it may prove impossible to determine the status of that number.
Prime numbers have only 2 factors and their set is not well defined because they do not follow an orderly mathematical pattern.
This follows from the way in which addition of whole numbers is defined.
No, whole numbers are defined as non-negative integers.
That is how whole numbers are defined.
Integers are defined as whole numbers.
Yes. That means that the product of two whole numbers is defined, and that it is again a whole number.
not defined because there are infinite number of whole numbers. ramesh babu
No, because integers are defined as whole numbers.
The set is well defined. Whether or not a given integer belongs to the set of prime numbers is clearly defined even if, for extremely large numbers, it may prove impossible to determine the status of that number.
Prime numbers have only 2 factors and their set is not well defined because they do not follow an orderly mathematical pattern.
The set is well defined. Whether or not a given integer belongs to the set of prime numbers is clearly defined even if, for extremely large numbers, it may prove impossible to determine the status of that number.
"41 and 50" is a list of two whole numbers. There's no procedure defined for making a decimal out of two whole numbers.
No, 0.326 is not a whole number. Whole numbers are defined by being integers, or numbers without a value (other than 0) past its decimal place.