- 5 is the smaller number. The truncated number line.- 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 0 1 2 3----------------------------------- 5 is in the " smaller " direction from 0.
There is no such number since a number 6 smaller than it would satisfy the requirements and it would be smaller. The smallest positive number is 3 = 6*0 + 3 But as mentioned above, without the restriction of positivity, -3 would have done and would have been smaller. And if -3 then -9 and then -15 etc.
Smaller. The product of any positive number and a number between 0 and 1 will be smaller than the original number.
3 is smaller.
The number becomes smaller unless it is a negative number or zero (0).
There is no such number since a number 6 smaller than it would satisfy the requirements and it would be smaller. The smallest positive number is 3 = 6*0 + 3 But as mentioned above, without the restriction of positivity, -3 would have done and would have been smaller. And if -3 then -9 and then -15 etc.
Any NEGATIVE number is SMALLER then 0, or less in value(-1,-2,-3...) BUT COUNTING numbers are GREATER than 0 (1,2,3...)
Smaller. The product of any positive number and a number between 0 and 1 will be smaller than the original number.
The answer to the question, as asked, is 3. You did not specify that a 6-digit [positive] number was required. If so, the answer is 203485. But -854203 is smaller still, and -584203 will be even smaller.
A negative integer is a number less than 0 0 is neither a negative nor positive integer. negative integers = -1, -2, -3, -4 and so on
The number becomes smaller unless it is a negative number or zero (0).
Yes, 0/3 is 0 which is a rational number
No.
0
No, It is less. Look at this: -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 smaller................bigger The larger the negative number, the smaller it gets, because it is getting more negative.
Yes it is yes because the integer -3 is closer to 0 than -4 the bigger the negative, the smaller the number.
-3