I would say 4.
Most schools teach you to always round up 5 (to 5 in this case). That is a simple rule to teach to young children but what it overlooks is that the process introduces an upward bias. You do not need to be an expert mathematician to figure out that if
for 1,2,3 and 4 you round down
for 5,6,7,8 and 9 you round up,
(for 0 you don't need rounding.
Then for a random lot of numbers you will be rounding up 5/9 of the time and rounding down only 4/9. Not exactly unbiased, is it?
One solution to this is to round 5 so that the last significant digit is even. All else remains as above. The procedure is only slightly more complicated but at least it is unbiased!
50
No, it means rounding to the nearest whole number.The nearest whole number is the nearest one .The nearest whole number to 1.9 is 2 .So the nearest whole number to 1,624,381.9 is 1,624,382 .
The nearest whole number to 200 is 200 itself. In mathematics, when determining the nearest whole number, you look at the whole number that is closest to the given number. Since 200 is already a whole number, it is the nearest whole number to itself.
Oh, dude, 33 percent to the nearest whole number is like 33.3 percent. But if you want it as a whole number, then it's 33 percent. So, like, if you're rounding it to the nearest whole number, it's still 33. Hope that helps!
43
44.9 to the nearest whole number is 45.
45
It is 45.
44.6
Yes, if you are rounding to the nearest ten. No, if you are rounding to the nearest whole number.
It is: 71% to the nearest whole number
0.62 is approximate to0 to the nearest ten1 to the nearest whole number/unit0.6 to the nearest tenth
It is 45 when rounded to the nearest whole number because .1 is less than .5
50
9.45 rounded to the nearest whole number is 10. .45 rounds to .5 and 9.5 rounds to 10.
49 lowest no. 45
No, it means rounding to the nearest whole number.The nearest whole number is the nearest one .The nearest whole number to 1.9 is 2 .So the nearest whole number to 1,624,381.9 is 1,624,382 .