69 is an integer, not a fraction.
The integer between the two numbers is 43.
The number 69 can be a reference to a sexual position between two consenting adults.
Not at all. Six times one half is three, and one half is not an integer.
The difference between a positive integer and a negative integer is ALWAYS positive.Suppose X and Y are positive so that -Y is negative,The the difference two numbers, A and B is A - B so the difference between X and (-Y) is X - (-Y) which equals X + Y. The sum of two positive numbers is always positive.
Yes.
Algebraically, your question can be posed as, "Is there an integer x such that 23x = 69?"The answer is yes, the integer 3, therefore 69 is a multiple of 23.
The first integer must equal 77 - 69 = 8 , since doubling it increases the sum by this amount. Similarly, the second integer must = 91 - 69 = 22. Then the third integer is 69 - 22 - 8 = 39.
69 is an integer, not a fraction.
69 is an integer and can be expressed in rational form as 69/1. You can then calculate equivalent rational fractions if you multiply both, its numerator and denominator, by any non-zero integer.
No. You cannot get an integer between 1.2 and 1.3
69 is an integer and not a fraction. One possible equivalent form is 690/10.
69 is an integer, not a fraction. There is not really a sensible way of writing it as a fraction. However, if you must, you can use (69*k)/k where k is any non-zero integer as an equivalent fraction.
69 is an integer, not a fraction.
It is: 48/69 times 100 = 70% rounded to the nearest integer
69 times 1881 is 129789, which is an integer, not a fraction.
138 is, itself, an integer. It is impossible for any integer to lie between two consecutive integers.