26.
The three consecutive whole numbers you are looking for are 1, 2, and 3. The sum of the first two numbers, 1 + 2 = 3.
Yes, if the first number is odd.
That isn't possible. The three consecutive number are assumed to be integers; the sum of three consecutive integers is always a multiple of 3 (try it out).
EVERY three consecutive numbers add to a multiple of 3: Proof: numbers are n, n + 1 and n + 2. The total is 3n + 3 or 3(n + 1) This means that for any three consecutive numbers, the total is 3 times the middle number.
This is no set of three consecutive numbers that when multiplied equal 387.
The three consecutive whole numbers you are looking for are 1, 2, and 3. The sum of the first two numbers, 1 + 2 = 3.
Yes, if the first number is odd.
That doesn't work. The number has to be divisible by three. Any three consecutive numbers add up to a multiple of three.
The smallest is 55.
Any three-digit multiple of 60, from 120 to 960, has the first five counting numbers as factors.
Any two consecutive numbers must comprise one odd and one even number, so their product must be even. Any three consecutive numbers must include two consecutive numbers so the result still applies.
Their sum is three times the middle number.
If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.If you take three consecutive odd (or three consecutive even) numbers, one of the three will always be a multiple of 3.
The smallest is 55.
There are no three consecutive numbers with a sum of 170.
No other prime numbers are consecutive because there aren't any other even prime numbers.
That isn't possible. The three consecutive number are assumed to be integers; the sum of three consecutive integers is always a multiple of 3 (try it out).