you would probably round it to 1. don't know for sure but i am pretty sure it is right.
To the nearest whole number, 3
Well, honey, if you wanna round 3.09 to the nearest whole number, you just gotta look at that pesky little decimal. Since 3.09 is closer to 3 than it is to 4, you round it down to 3. Voila, problem solved!
When you converting a decimal to a whole number, precision will get lost (you lose the decimal part). The "converted" number will, of course, not be exactly the same as the original number.You must decide, depending on your needs, whether you want to:Round to the nearest whole number (3 in this case).Round up (also 3 in this case).Round down (2 in this case).
3.75 rounded to the nearest whole number is 4. When rounding to the nearest whole number, if the decimal is at the .5 mark or higher, round up. If it's less than .5 round down. So 3.5 would round up to 4, but 3.4 would round down to 3.
To round 3.07 to the nearest whole number, we look at the digit in the tenths place, which is 0 in this case. Since 0 is less than 5, we round down. Therefore, 3.07 rounded to the nearest whole number is 3.
3
If we rounded 3 to the nearest tens, it would be 0. Number 1 Rule: If the number is above 5, round up. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 If the number is 4 and below, round down. 4, 3, 2, and 1 Since the number is 3, we have to round down to the nearest ten, which is 0.
The nearest whole number would be 3, since 6 would cause the 2 to round up to 3.
just round to 3
To the nearest whole number, 3
To the nearest whole number, 3
3
It is 3.
3
It can round up to 3.
Yes. 3/sqrt(2) is an irrational number and so cannot be round.
If a coordinate is half way between a number, eg (2.3,74) then you round to the nearest whole number so it would be (2, 74) (round 2.5 to 3 not to 2, round 2.1 to 2 not 3 and round 2.7 to 3, this is because the number after the decimal place is either closer to one or the other)