Is 1.2 an even number? please explain?
960955
decimals are not even numbers...only whole numbers can be even
923278
Yes, \n1:1 means 1 and by convention, \nthis means 1 to 1 matching i.e.same \nimplying  'same dimensions as the other'\nSimple...Got it?
917997
Simply loop through the list of numbers and compute:\n\n'number' modulo '2'\n\nIn C, that would be:\n\nnumber % 2\n\nA modulus of 2 would return a '1' for odd numbers, and '0' for even numbers (since even numbers divide by 2 with no remainder, and odd numbers divide by 2 with a remainder of 1).\n\nExample:\n\nint index;\nint numArray[25];\n\n...(store the 25 numbers in the array)...\n\nfor(index = 0; index < 25; index++) {\n     if(numArray[i] % 2) {\n          printf("%d&#92;n", numArray[i]);\n     }\n}
928924
The +/- means exactly what it looks like.  It means that there are two possible answers.  \nAnswer 1  :  1.487+2.571(0.165)\nAnswer 2  :  1.487-2.571(0.165)\n\nYou get the +/- from taking a square root because (almost) all square roots can either be positive or negative.
16547
Oddities like this are due to floating-point math, and are quite common, unfortunately.  The problem is that floating point numbers are stored in binary, and so they can only be an approximation of most numbers (like .1).  I bet if you do this calculation in Python or C, you'll get the same sort of answer.
1052440
The trivial zeros are at (-2K+0i), where K is a positive integer. The nontrivial zeros are all the others. It has been shown that the nontrivial zeroes must have a real part between 0 and 1.
1025493
It's rational and it's 2.\n\nI think you answered your own question, 1.9999... is a repeating decimal, so it is a rational. \n\nI think some of the confusion comes from the fact that some repeating decimals, like .33333..., come out of repeated long division. But there isn't any long division that will give you 1.99999...\n\nThe thing to remember is that either you accept that 1.9999... represents a number, or you don't. And if you accept that it represents a number, then 2 is the only value it can take that won't break all of your rules of arithmetic.
999326
If you start with a number bigger than one, then the square root will always be smaller than the number, but bigger than 1.  So every time you take the square root, the number gets smaller, but never gets smaller than one.  Eventually it's so close to one that the calculator just displays it as 1.
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
991923
For the first one, 4<-2<6 does become -2>x>-3 (you do have to flip the signs) and yes, it is still an "And" statement, just in reverse (or in other words, -2>x>-3 is the exact same thing as -3<x<-2). For the second one, you don't actually have to multiply by 10, but you should get the same answer either way. I got 0.84<x<1.76.
747650
1.7.9\n\n2.18.132\n\n3.7.818
835878
There's a better way of looking at it.\n\nFor every real number x in [0,1) you define D(x, n) as the nth decimal of x.  This is defined for every natural number n.\n\nFor x=1/3, we have D(1/3, n) = 3 for every n.  The number 0.3333... (the dots are important, they indicate that the nth decimal is a 3 for every n) is not "very close" to 1/3, it does not "tend toward" 1/3.  It is EXACTLY the number 1/3.  Show me a number other than 1/3 and I will show you that its decimal representation is not 0.33333...\n\nFor 0, we have D(0,n) = 0 for every n.  There is never a '1' decimal.  If you give me an arbitrarily small number 0.00000...1, the digit 1 is at a finite position p.  I can then reply with a number such that D(x,n)=0 for all n<=p, and D(x,p+1) = 1.  That number is greater than zero and smaller than the number that you gave me.  \n\nThe 0.5 = 0.49999... thing is just a quirk of decimal notation.  We can formally prove the equality as follows:\n\nLet a = 0.5, i.e. D(a, 1) = 5 and D(a,n) = 0 for all n>2.\nLet b = 0.4999..., i.e. D(b, 1) = 4 and D(b,n) = 9 for all n>2.\n\nProof by contradiction that a=b: Let's suppose on the contrary that a > b.  This means there must be a number x between a and b.\n\nLet's figure out the digits of x.  Since x is less that a=0.5, its first decimal must be a 4.  D(x,1) = 4.\n\nThe second decimal of x must be 9 since x > b `> 0.49.\nThe third decimal of x must be 9 since x > b >0.499.\nAnd so on, the nth decimal of x must be a 9 because x > b > the number y such that D(y,1)=4, D(y,i)=9 for i=2 to n and D(y,i) = 0 for i>n.\n\nTherefore x has exactly the same digits as b=0.499999... (I just showed that for every n, the nth digit of x is the same as the nth digit of b), and so x=b.  Contradiction, ergo a = b.\n\nThat's the difference between 0.499999... vs. 0.5 and 0.0000...1 vs. 0.  In the latter case, it is possible to find a number that is between the two.
738951
It is 1, just like 0.3333... *is* exactly 1/3 and 0.6666... *is* exactly 2/3 and 0.9999.... *is* exactly 3/3 = 1.\n\nIt's not *close* it just *is*, exactly equivalent.\n\nThere is no trick to it... ask any mathematician and they will confirm that 0.9999.... repeating is just another way of representing 1.0.\n\n1/9 = 0.1111...\n2/9 = 0.2222...\n3/9 = 0.3333... (1/3)\n4/9 = 0.4444...\n5/9 = 0.5555...\n6/9 = 0.6666... (2/3)\n7/9 = 0.7777...\n8/9 = 0.8888...\n9/9 = 0.9999... (1)\n\nor use this proof:\n\nx = 0.9999...\n10x = 9.9999...\n10x - x = 9.9999... - 0.9999...\n9x = 9\nx = 1\n\nTo say that 0.9999.... doesn't equal 1 because it might eventually end and be different than one is like saying 0.0 repeating might not equal zero.\n\nCheck Wikipedia or any of the math forums to see that 0.9999... is confirmed to be 1, despite what our intuitive logic might say otherwise.
129045
Even numbers are divisible by 2 (2,4,6,8,10, etc) whereas odd are not (1,3,5,7,9, etc)
830770
2 is the only even prime number, and it divides evenly into every even number. 2 is the smallest factorial prime and the only factorial that is prime.  The first 30 prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, and 113 .\n\nPrime numbers are numbers greater than 1 that are divisible by exactly two numbers: 1 and themselves. For example, the prime numbers through 20 are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and 19. As numbers grow larger, prime numbers become scarcer. If you examine the numbers from 1 to 100, you'll find that 25% of them are prime numbers. When you extend the list and check the numbers from 1 to 1000, the percentage drops dramatically to 16.8%. Only about 7% of the numbers from 1 to 1,000,000 are prime numbers.\n\nMathematicians believe (but have not conclusively proven) that every even number is the sum of two prime numbers except for the number 2.♥
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.
145210
They call ZERO an even number, who are they that mention like this?\n\nActually, odd numbers are start with 1, then 3, 5, etc., even numbers are start with 2, then 4, 6, etc.\n\nIf you check at the numbers system, then you can understand what meant by odd number, even number, negative number, natural number, whole number and others. \n\nSo, here the point is, ZERO actually is not a even number (the smaller even number start with 2), then there was no reason to tell you that why can call it an even number.