805 has three significant figures. A significant figure is any non-zero digit or any embedded or trailing zero. Leading zeros are not significant.
5000 is a number with no units. It CANNOT be compared with a number which HAS units.Without knowing the UNITS of the 5000 no comparison can be made.5000 oz are different to 5000 lb which are different to 5000 kg - which are all different to 5 tons.I guess you meant 5000 lb.1 (short US) ton = 2000 lb→ 5 tons = 5 × 2000 lb = 10,000 lb5,000 < 10,000→ 5,000 lb < 10,000 lb→ 5,000 lb < 5 tons→ 5 tons are greater than 5,000 lb
Yes; or No - depending upon whether you are using the long ton of 2240 lbs (used in UK) or the short ton of 2000 lb (used in the US):long ton:1T = 2240 lb → 3T 500 lb = 3 x 2240 lb + 500 lb= 6720 lb + 500 lb= 7220 lb > 7000 lb - YesShort ton:1T = 2000 lb → 3T 500 lb = 3 x 2000 lb + 500 lb= 6000 lb + 500 lb= 6500 lb < 7000 lb - No
1 lb = 0.453592 kg1 lb = 0.453592 kg1 lb = 0.453592 kg1 lb = 0.453592 kg1 lb = 0.453592 kg1 lb = 0.453592 kg
(105 lb 8 oz) - (98 lb 12 oz) = (104 lb + 1 lb 8 oz) - (98 lb 12 oz) = 6 lb + (1 lb 8 oz) - (0 lb 12 oz) = 6 lb + 24 oz - 12 oz = 6 lb + 12 oz
805 has three significant figures. A significant figure is any non-zero digit or any embedded or trailing zero. Leading zeros are not significant.
0.77 lb.
680 g to two significant figures1 lb = 16 oz1 oz = 28.34952 g1 lb, 8 oz = 16 oz + 8 oz = 24 oz24 oz x 28.34952 g/oz = 680.38848 g = 680 to two significant figures
you keep writing till u have 170 lb. of of figures
Buttermilk has an approximate density of 8.64 ounces/cup. There are 4 cups/quart and 16 ounces/lb. 38.8 lbs X 16 oz/lb / 8.64 oz/cup / 4 cups/quart = 18.0 (rounded to 3 significant figures)
220 kilograms is equivalent to approximately 485 pounds.
For any conversion, 16 oz = 1 lb. Therefore set up the problem so units cancel: 23 oz x 1lb ____ = 1.4375 oz, use significant figures = 1.4 oz 16 oz
lb is the abbreviation for pound. It IS the word pound. It does not have a number.
Depending upon which type of pound it is: * £11,020; or * 11,020 lb
Yes, any number for an LB.
66 is the number he had.
Well, let's see. We have a unit "ft-lb", we have a unit "ft", we have a unit "lb" ... you know, I bet if you multiply the "lb" number by the "ft" number it will give you the "ft-lb" number.(The fancy word for this sort of reasoning is "dimensional analysis", and you'd be surprised how far it will get you in solving problems in college chemistry and physics courses, even if you don't have the faintest clue what you're doing otherwise.)