stop playing terrible fatlus games
16 is not a perfect number as defined by Euchlid and Euler. 6 is a perfect number, by their definition, because it is the sum of all its proper positive divisors - all numbers that will divide into the number excluding itself - (1 + 2 + 3) = 6, and equal to half the sum of all its positive divisors, including itself (1 + 2 + 3 + 6)/2 = 6. 28 is the next number. There is still an unsolved mystery in number theory as to whether there can be an odd perfect number.
Rational: yes. Natural: no.
no
Well if you mean positive then yes a positive times a positive is always a positive! Those numbers always have their calculators half full :)
No. A natural number has no fractional part (or digits after a decimal point).
Divisors of 496 are 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 31, 62, 124 and 248 and the sum of all these divisors is 496 (1+2+4+8+16+31+62+124+248=496) so 496 is a perfect number.The first perfect number is 6, because 1, 2, and 3 are its proper positive divisors, and 1 + 2 + 3 = 6. Equivalently, the number 6 is equal to half the sum of all its positive divisors: (1 + 2 + 3 + 6) / 2 = 6.
16 is not a perfect number as defined by Euchlid and Euler. 6 is a perfect number, by their definition, because it is the sum of all its proper positive divisors - all numbers that will divide into the number excluding itself - (1 + 2 + 3) = 6, and equal to half the sum of all its positive divisors, including itself (1 + 2 + 3 + 6)/2 = 6. 28 is the next number. There is still an unsolved mystery in number theory as to whether there can be an odd perfect number.
25 is not an abundant number because the sum of its divisors is less than half of 25. The lowest odd abundant number is 945.
No it is not a natural number its a decimal or fractional number
Rational: yes. Natural: no.
no
Exactly a half.
Well if you mean positive then yes a positive times a positive is always a positive! Those numbers always have their calculators half full :)
No. A natural number has no fractional part (or digits after a decimal point).
A Colt police positive special with that serial number was made in the latter half of 1921.
1/infinity? * * * * * Nice idea but unfortunately that is not a rational number, which is defined as the ration of two integers, x/y where y > 0. Since infinity is not an integer, the suggested ratio is not a rational number. The correct answer is that there is no such number. If any number laid claim to being the smallest positive rational, then half of that number would have a better claim. And then a half of THAT number would be a positive rational that was smaller still. And so on.
The only such number is zero.