Are there more real numbers (1.0153 or 1.00384 for example)between 1 and 2, or between 1 and 3?
343993
This depends on exactly what you mean by the term 'more'. The collection of real numbers between 1 and 2 is a 'proper subset' of the collection of real numbers between 1 and 3. So in this sense, there are more between 1 and 3.\n\nHowever, it is much more common to talk about 'more than' in the context of cardinality of sets. Two sets are said to be of the same cardinality if there is a way of pairing off the sets so that each element of one gets paired off with exactly one element of the other and vice versa. In this sense, the collection of real numbers between 1 and 2 has the same cardinality as the collection of real numbers between 1 and 3. The pairing can be done by associating a real number x between 1 and 2 with the real number 2x-1, which will be between 1 and 3. In fact, both have the same cardinality as the whole set of real numbers, although this is a bit trickier to see.\n\nIt turns out that two infinite sets may not have the same cardinality. For example, there are 'more' (in the sense of cardinality) counting numbers than there are real numbers. There is no way of paring off each counting number with each real number as above.
470658
The above answer is basically correct.  Plug in a few more values, such as (21,1543.5), (22,1694), and so on for a few more values of the graph.
365093
7.38461538    \nor\n7 5/13\nor\n7(+5)\n.\n.\n.\n.\n.
832646
I'm sorry, but how could you not know this?\nThis is basic elementary math and if you don't know how to round you are in trouble.\nIt's 0.1 by the way
914486
just plug -1.5 in for x and see if it equals 1.5.       \n2 X -1.5 = -3                  -3 does not equal 1.5\nso the answer is false
930802
not necessary to have whole numbers...you can have decimals like 2.79 5.5 3.2 like these..all these depends on the key you used to represent the data
376319
Are you able to use any other numbers and operators?  If so this would be fairly easy.  Using only Three 8's and a subtraction symbol it is not possibe\n\nClosest example (8+8)/8-1=1
929129
Hi. 0.754 x 1.0 would be obvious.  0.754 x .1 would involve moving the decimal point one place to the left.  0.754 x 0.8 would involve solving for the last value and adding 8 times.
164812
If it does not contain a decimal place I guess:\n5?
658590
1. no\n2. 1\n3. 12\n4. 6\n5. no\n6. 25\n7, 2\n8. 90\n9. 9\n10. none\n11. don't know
239293
1.643+2.912-2.620+8.660=10.595
955805
That simplifies to 3[2x-1]>12\n\n[2x-1]>4\n\n2x-1>4    2x-1<-4\n\nx>5/2  or x<-3/2\n\nWhen you have absolute values, you have to look at both ends of the spectrum
1115436
The number is not defined.\n\nLots of people are saying things like...\n"0.000...00001"\n"1/x as x approaches infinity"\n\nThese numbers, technically, are the same as 0.\n\n"n^0" --- ok that's just not thinking. If n <> 0 or n <> inf, then any n^0 = 1.\n\nProof:\nLet 0* be a number infinitely close to 0.\n0* = 1 - .999....\n.999... = 3 * (.333...) // Because 3*3 = 9 no matter how many time you do it.\n.999... = 3 * (1/3 )  // Exact fractional representation\n.999... = 1\nTherefore, 0* = 1 - 1, and 0* = 0.\n\nAs for the answer, the "smallest", non-zero real number does not exist. Well, we know that it "should" exist. It just doesn't.\n\nExcept on computers. That's another problem entirely. Because computers have a data limit, they do actually have a smallest real number >0
453007
75: 8.660254038\n18: 4.242640687\n24: 4.898979486\n250: 15.8113883\n\nAll values are approximate
389904
Multiply 12.75 by a conversion factor of 2.54 for an approximation.  It's a little over 32
665207
12.8 & -0.15\n\nEach multiplied by (1/41) gives\n0.312195122 & -0.003658536
668533
There are 3 pairs:\n\n1. 0 and 0\n2. 2 and 2\n3. 9 and 9\n\nThere won't be any more as the number values get larger. This is because when the no.s are multiplied, there would be more digits than when the no.s are added. So they can't be opposite if they have diff. no. of digits.