No.
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.
No it is not. The nearest multiples of 6 to 56 are... 54 & 60
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.
No, the square root of 56 is not an integer. The square root of 56 can be simplified to 2√14, which is an irrational number. Since it cannot be expressed as a whole number, it does not qualify as 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 is an integer, not a fraction and there is no sensible way to express it as a fraction.
56 + 34 = 90 is an integer, not 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.
Barium, a chemical element with the symbol Ba, has an atomic number of 56. This means that, when expressed as an integer, Barium is represented by the number 56.
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.