No. The concept of consecutive makes sense for integers but not for fractions. Fractions are infinitely dense. This means that there are infinitely many fractions between any two numbers - including between any two fractions. So, given one fraction, f1, there cannot be a "next" or "consecutive" fraction, f2, because there are an infinite number of fractions between f1 and f2.
No, because the word integer means whole number (positive or negative).
No.
2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.
are all fractions are integers
Fractions are not integers. They may or may not be rational numbers.
consecutive integers
There is no set of six consecutive integers for -4.
2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.2436 and 1624 are integers, not fractions. And, as integers, they are unequal.
Fractions are not integers.
are all fractions are integers
Fractions are not integers. They may or may not be rational numbers.
"Consecutive" integers are integers that have no other integer between them.
There are no "two consecutive integers" that can do that.But there are two consecutive even integers that can: 8 and 10 .
consecutive integers
The two consecutive integers are 19 and 20.
There is no set of three consecutive integers for 187.
There is no set of six consecutive integers for -4.
They are consecutive odd integers: 25 and 27.
There is no set of three consecutive integers for 106.