Actually it is. Well, it depends what definition of "whole number" you use. Some definitions include only positive integers, some use it as a synonym of "integers". Therefore, due to this ambiguity, the phrase "whole numbers" would better be avoided in math. Rather, use words or phrases like "integers", "positive integers", or "non-negative integers", to convey the exact meaning, without ambiguity.
The nearest whole number is 0.The nearest whole number is 0.The nearest whole number is 0.The nearest whole number is 0.
The whole number part is 0.
a whole number
-5 is not a whole number. it is an integer. whole number starts from 0 to infinity.
0.0625 is a mixed number and there is no way to represent it as a whole number. The whole part of it is 0.
The nearest whole number is 0.The nearest whole number is 0.The nearest whole number is 0.The nearest whole number is 0.
yes, 0 is a whole number
1 8th is not a whole number. The nearest whole number is 0.
A WHOLE NUMBER IS ANY NUMBER FROM 0 TO INFINITY.
No it isnt. The "-2" part is a whole number, but once you start tacking on more fragments and bits after the decimal point, you don't have a whole number any more.
It is not a whole number. The nearest whole number is 0.
0 is whole no but not a natural no.
The nearest whole number is 0.
The nearest whole number is 0.
The whole number part is 0.
No, a whole number does not have to 0
The nearest whole number is 0.