Q: What type of graph is present between natural numbers verses their squares?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Continue Learning about Math & Arithmetic

The sum of the squares of the first 100 natural numbers [1..100] is 338350, while the sum of the first 100 natural numbers squared is 25502500.

The sum of the squares of the first 20 natural numbers 1 to 20 is 2,870.

Difference between the sum of the squares and the square of the sums of n numbers?Read more:Difference_between_the_sum_of_the_squares_and_the_square_of_the_sums_of_n_numbers

No.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theorem

Rectangular numbers are a subset of composite numbers. The squares of prime numbers will be composite but not rectangular.

Related questions

Natural numbers which are the scales of some natural numbers are perfect squares

The sum of the squares of the first 100 natural numbers [1..100] is 338350, while the sum of the first 100 natural numbers squared is 25502500.

There are an infinite amount of numbers that that have squares between 10 and 65

The sum of the squares of the first 20 natural numbers 1 to 20 is 2,870.

Difference between the sum of the squares and the square of the sums of n numbers?Read more:Difference_between_the_sum_of_the_squares_and_the_square_of_the_sums_of_n_numbers

There are two prime numbers with squares between 100 and 300. These prime numbers are 11 and 13. (112 = 121 and 132 = 169.)

Three numbers.

No.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theoremNo.First of all, you can't write negative numbers as sums of perfect squares at all - since all perfect squares are positive.Second, for natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) you may need up to 4 perfect squares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange's_four-square_theorem

Two. 36, and 49 are perfect squares.

Rectangular numbers are a subset of composite numbers. The squares of prime numbers will be composite but not rectangular.

it is a triangle with circles at the corners, and squares in the middle of the corners. The squares have numbers in them, and you have to put numbers in the circles. However, the numbers in the circles have to add up to the number of the square between them. Simple, right?

There are no perfect numbers between 20 and 30. Perfect numbers are numbers that are equal to the sum of their proper divisors, excluding the number itself. The perfect numbers within this range would be 28, but that is incorrect as 28 is not a perfect number.