The integers are 53, 55 and 57.
Well, I don't believe this is the answer, but 55 works. 55+55+55=165.
Five times thirty-three is equal to 165.
3 odd integers must total an odd number. 3 consecutive odd integers must total a multiple of 3. The lowest number greater than 162 which satisfies these requirements is 165, ie 53 + 55 + 57
Neither 8 nor 7 are equal to 165. The only number equal to 165 is 165.
The integers are 53, 55 and 57.
Oh, dude, that's easy! So, if we have two consecutive integers, let's call them x and x+1, right? And if their sum is -165, we just set up the equation x + (x+1) = -165 and solve it. So, x + x + 1 = -165, which simplifies to 2x + 1 = -165. Then we just solve for x by subtracting 1 from both sides and dividing by 2. So, x = -83.5. But wait, integers can't be decimals, so that means there are no two consecutive integers that add up to -165. Like, whoa, mind blown!
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Well, I don't believe this is the answer, but 55 works. 55+55+55=165.
Five times thirty-three is equal to 165.
3 odd integers must total an odd number. 3 consecutive odd integers must total a multiple of 3. The lowest number greater than 162 which satisfies these requirements is 165, ie 53 + 55 + 57
163, 164, 165 let the three consecutive numbers be (n-1), n & (n+1). Then: (n-1) + n + (n+1) = 492 ⇒ 3n = 492 ⇒ n = 164 ⇒ the three numbers are 164-1 = 163, 164 & 164+1 = 165.
√144 < √165 < √169 12 < √165 < 13
Neither 8 nor 7 are equal to 165. The only number equal to 165 is 165.
15 × 11 = 165
Yes. 165 is evenly divisible by three.
12 and 13