This would be impossible - since the mean of the three integers would have to be an integer, and if you divide -56 by 3, you do not get an integer.
The reciprocal of any integer x is equal to 1/x. In this instance, expressed as a proper fraction, the reciprocal of 56 is equal to 1/56.
1. let n = the odd integer then n + 2 must be the next odd integer 2. n + (n + 2) = 56 3. 2n + 2 = 56 4. 2n = 54 5. n = 27 6. 27 + 2 = 29 is the next odd integer
Assuming the seventh integer multiple, the answer is 56.
From lowest to highest: -56 -0.462 0 0.326 735 8321
No, it isn't an integer.
56 is an integer and not a fraction. However, it can be expressed in rational form as (56*k)/k where k is an integer.
-56 is an integer so there is no fractional part.
The greatest factor of any integer is the integer itself.
56 is an integer and not a fraction. However, it can be expressed in rational form as 56/1 which cannot be simplified.
56 + 34 = 90 is an integer, not a fraction.
56 is an integer, not a fraction and there is no sensible way to express it as a fraction.
This would be impossible - since the mean of the three integers would have to be an integer, and if you divide -56 by 3, you do not get an integer.
The numbers that are divisible by 56 are in the form 56k where k is the integer constant.
No. The square root of a positive integer can only be an integer, or an irrational number.
-25
56 is an integer and so there is not really a sensible way of writing it as a fraction or mixed number.