It seems that somebody told you that every fraction could be written as a whole number.
That person knew not whereof he spoke.
The smallest whole number is ' 1 '. "7 over 10" is 30 percent less than ' 1 '.
It doesn't have what it takes to be any whole number.
If every fraction could be written as a whole number, then nobody would need fractions.
If that's the mixed number 7 and 1/3, the whole number is 7.
3 over 7 is a fraction and is not equivalent to a whole number.
No because 7/9 is a fraction which is not a whole number
7/12 cant be a mixed number because it is less than a whole and a mixed number is at least a whole or higher.
The whole number of 7 over 1 is 7. In mathematics, a fraction with a denominator of 1 simplifies to the numerator value, which in this case is 7. Whole numbers are integers that are greater than or equal to zero, and they do not have any fractional or decimal parts.
The reciprocal of 27/10 is 10/27
7 over 4 does not equate to a whole number.
33 over 7 does not equate to a whole number.
1/7 is a fraction and not a whole number. So it cannot be expressed as a whole number.
Since 52 is not divisible by 7, 52 over 7 is a mixed fraction. It cannot be written as a whole number for the simple reason that it is not a whole number.
If that's the mixed number 7 and 1/3, the whole number is 7.
3 over 7 is a fraction and is not equivalent to a whole number.
yes It depends upon the context. If "3 over 7" is intended to be a fraction, then it is not a whole number.
I have no clue
No because 7/9 is a fraction which is not a whole number
No, it is not.
No.