Remember that in decimal numbers like the ones you have shown, there are two parts. The whole number part (before the decimal point) and the decimal part (after the decimal point). Leading zeros in the whole number part are not siginificant and can be omitted. The reason you have a zero before the decimal point in 0.12 is for clarity (so that one does not miss a poorly wriiten decimal point). It could have been written as .12, however trailing zeros in the whole number part are very significant. We will use the 0 in front of the decimal point as it is aesthetically preferable. In contrast, leading zeros after the decimal point are very significant but trailing zeros are not. Hence 0.090 could be written as 0.09 wihtout affecting its value. Hence the numbers we have to compare are 0.12 and 0.09 which really represent 12/100 and 9/100 and so 0.12 is greater than 0.09 or 0.090
.012
Yes it is - it's 50% greater.
.025 is thicker than .012
0.012 is 0.003 thicker than 0.009
The standard for of 012 is just 12 - without the zero.If you mean .012 (some signs get eliminated in answers.com questions), that already IS the standard form.
.012
Yes it is - it's 50% greater.
No. A correlation coefficient cannot be less than -1 (or greater than +1)
.025 is thicker than .012
0.9%
Turkey/Istanbul
what gauge is .012"?
0.012 is 0.003 thicker than 0.009
012 = 12 = 1200%
12.5 is not equal to 012 or to 4.
The standard for of 012 is just 12 - without the zero.If you mean .012 (some signs get eliminated in answers.com questions), that already IS the standard form.
No. The International Dialling Code for the UK is 0044.