It is: 7258 and 7285-7258 = 27
It would be a smaller number, but without knowing what fraction it is raised to, you can't tell how much smaller.
No they do not, take a big prime number and compare it to a smaller composite number. The number 6833 as only two factors (divisors), namely 1 and itself. But the number 68 which is much smaller has more factors or divisors. 68 has 2 and 4 and 17 and 1 and itself which is already more divisors than 6833.
Ten times smaller.
No. There's no two digit numbers that could do this. The largest two digit number is 99. If you add 99 to itself, you only get 198, which is much smaller than a four digit number.
The numerator is "much smaller" than the denominator. "Much smaller" is subjective, but then so is "close to" in the question.
SO pretty much, you would fit the smaller number into the bigger number, and turn the extras into a negitave (ex. 6-8=(-2)
It would be a smaller number, but without knowing what fraction it is raised to, you can't tell how much smaller.
Nitrogen has a much smaller atomic number, specifically 7, than either chromium (24) or radon (86).
The litre would be a much smaller number.
I suspect the answer you are looking for is an outlier.
That number depends on what it is associated to, it can basically be an expression in mathematics which shows a number is smaller then 1, in other words, 1>0.922 , that is how small the number really is.
The Namib is the smallest major desert in Africa. However, there are a number of much smaller deserts in a number of African countries.
No much smaller actually.
Much, MUCH smaller than the smallest star.
Much smaller
Antarctica is much, much smaller than Africa.
American Wire Guage. The smaller the number the larger the wire. As in an AWG 14/2 wire is much smaller than an AWG 10/2 wire.