No. The decimal part would still have digits after the decimal point, in any number base.
Pi is irrational, meaning that you can't express it as a fraction, with integers in the numerator and denominator. Note that this is independent of a number base.
Pi is also transcendental, meaning that it is not the solution of any polynomial equation with integral coefficients. For example, you can't express it exactly as some square root, cubic root, etc. Once again, this is independent of a specific number base.
No. The decimal part would still have digits after the decimal point, in any number base.
Pi is irrational, meaning that you can't express it as a fraction, with integers in the numerator and denominator. Note that this is independent of a number base.
Pi is also transcendental, meaning that it is not the solution of any polynomial equation with integral coefficients. For example, you can't express it exactly as some square root, cubic root, etc. Once again, this is independent of a specific number base.
No. The decimal part would still have digits after the decimal point, in any number base.
Pi is irrational, meaning that you can't express it as a fraction, with integers in the numerator and denominator. Note that this is independent of a number base.
Pi is also transcendental, meaning that it is not the solution of any polynomial equation with integral coefficients. For example, you can't express it exactly as some square root, cubic root, etc. Once again, this is independent of a specific number base.
No. The decimal part would still have digits after the decimal point, in any number base.
Pi is irrational, meaning that you can't express it as a fraction, with integers in the numerator and denominator. Note that this is independent of a number base.
Pi is also transcendental, meaning that it is not the solution of any polynomial equation with integral coefficients. For example, you can't express it exactly as some square root, cubic root, etc. Once again, this is independent of a specific number base.
3 and 3
It is still an integer, which could be negative or positive.
15
An integer is a whole number. So zero could be the smallest integer.
25 over 5 equals 5 which is an integer. It is not sensible to change an integer or whole number into a mixed number but if you must, you could write it as 50/5
Yes. An integer is a whole number and it can be a positive or negative number, or 0.
3 and 3
It is still an integer, which could be negative or positive.
An integer is any whole number. It could be positive, zero or negative.
15
An integer is a whole number. So zero could be the smallest integer.
It can't be done!
No because it could be a fraction or a decimal
See if it is an even number. If it is, it's divisible by 2.
You could write it as a mixed number (12 and 4/4) but it wouldn't be in simplest form. The simplest form of any integer is the integer itself.
8 is the integer before 9, but a number is not necessarely an integer. You could say 8.9999999... comes before nine, or you could go further and say that any number that is less than nine is before nine, like -2.
25 over 5 equals 5 which is an integer. It is not sensible to change an integer or whole number into a mixed number but if you must, you could write it as 50/5