Consecutive numbers, by definition, don't differ by 17. It would have to be something like consecutive square numbers (64 and 81).
The square root of 300 is irrational. Irrational numbers are infinitely dense and therefore the concept of consecutive numbers cannot be applied to irrational numbers.
There are no three consecutive numbers that are squares. Otherwise, there are an infinite sets of squares of three consecutive numbers: for example, {1,4,9}, or {4,9,16} or {576, 625, 676}
16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25.
The square roots of 338 are approx -18 and +18. So 0 and 1 are consecutive numbers that are between them.
5.385 is the square root of 29. No consecutive numbers.
16,25,36 add to 77. They are the squares of consecutive numbers 4,5,6
Consecutive numbers, by definition, don't differ by 17. It would have to be something like consecutive square numbers (64 and 81).
no
The square root of 300 is irrational. Irrational numbers are infinitely dense and therefore the concept of consecutive numbers cannot be applied to irrational numbers.
There are no three consecutive numbers that are squares. Otherwise, there are an infinite sets of squares of three consecutive numbers: for example, {1,4,9}, or {4,9,16} or {576, 625, 676}
16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25.
The square roots of 338 are approx -18 and +18. So 0 and 1 are consecutive numbers that are between them.
The square root of 47 lies between the consecutive whole numbers 6 and 7.
The square roots of 117 are irrational numbers and so are not two integers - consecutive or otherwise.
An antimagic square is a heterosquare in which the sums form a sequence of consecutive numbers.
Square numbers.