Best Answer

Both statements are true.

These should really be asked as two separate questions.

Yes, the sum of any three consecutive integers is divisible by 3. Call the first number "n", the other two will be "n + 1" and "n + 2". Adding everything together, you get 3n + 3, which is equal to 3(n + 1). Since "n" is a whole number, so is "n + 1", and 3 times as much is a multiple of 3.

Two integers are consecutive if one is one more than the other... Well, yes, that's basically the definition of "consecutive".

More answers

These should really be asked as two separate questions.

Yes, the sum of any three consecutive integers is divisible by 3. Call the first number "n", the other two will be "n + 1" and "n + 2". Adding everything together, you get 3n + 3, which is equal to 3(n + 1). Since "n" is a whole number, so is "n + 1", and 3 times as much is a multiple of 3.

Two integers are consecutive if one is one more than the other... Well, yes, that's basically the definition of "consecutive".

Q: Is The sum of any three consecutive integers is divisible by 3 Two integers are consecutive if and only if one is one more than the other is this true or false and what would be the counterexample?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Continue Learning about Other Math

4 is divisible by 2 but not by 6

If this is a T-F question, the answer is false. It is true that if a number is divisible by 6, it also divisible by 3. This is true because 6 is divisible by 3. However, the converse -- If a number is divisible by 3, it is divisible by 6, is false. A counterexample is 15. 15 is divisible by 3, but not by 6. It becomes clearer if you split the question into its two parts. A number is divisible by 6 if it is divisible by 3? False. It must also be divisible by 2. A number is divisible by 6 only if it is divisible by 3? True.

False. Counterexample: -1 - (-2) = -1 + 2 = 1.

False. If it doesn't end with a 2, 4, 6, 8, or 0, then it's not divisible by 2.

It is true.

Related questions

That is false. This type of statement is only true for prime numbers, not for compound numbers such as 6. Counterexample: 2 x 3 = 6

4 is divisible by 2 but not by 6

You are an Idiot dude. there is no such value

4 divides 4 (once), but 4 is not divisible by 8. ■

If this is a T-F question, the answer is false. It is true that if a number is divisible by 6, it also divisible by 3. This is true because 6 is divisible by 3. However, the converse -- If a number is divisible by 3, it is divisible by 6, is false. A counterexample is 15. 15 is divisible by 3, but not by 6. It becomes clearer if you split the question into its two parts. A number is divisible by 6 if it is divisible by 3? False. It must also be divisible by 2. A number is divisible by 6 only if it is divisible by 3? True.

A counterexample is a specific case in which a statement is false.

Yes.

It's a counterexample.

Counterexample

A trapezium.

find a counterexample to the statement all us presidents have served only one term to show statement is false

How can the following definition be written correctly as a biconditional statement? An odd integer is an integer that is not divisible by two. (A+ answer) An integer is odd if and only if it is not divisible by two