Is fifth an ordinal or a cardinal?
961787
An ordinal.\n\nJust remember:  Ordinals talk about the ORDER of things -- so first, second, third, etc.\n\nCardinals are the counting numbers -- one, two, three, etc.\n\nANSWER:  Ordinal
1185451
Its the numbers 0 through 10 in alphabetical order.
406750
6*5*4*3 = 360 if order matters.\n\n6*5*4*3 / 4! = 15 if order does not matter
321839
farrell the first part of your solution is wrong.  There are 10 places to put the vowels, not 8, they can be at the beginning or the end. I believe it is 9! * (10!/5!) = 9! * 10 * 9 * 8 * 7 * 6\n\ntsniperx might be right but the question is ambiguous about this.  It says how many arrangements of the cards (not sequences of letters) are there which to me means that 0'0 and 00' are two different arrangements because the cards are in different order...but like I said it isn't obvious either way.  \n\nIF tsniperx is correct cornelius is still wrong, it would be 9!*10!/(5!*2!*2!*3!)  In other words, cornelius' answer is double the correct answer.  But I still think my original answer is correct.
1130513
DOWN\n5 - another word for strange (5 letters)\n\nWEIRD
682954
pentagon-5\nhexagon-6\npolygon-many
313999
:}\nthe term is Latin and means "Vicar of the Son of God." the fact that it has numerological equivalent of 666 has been made much of.\nIt was apparently a title applied to Peter, but to no subsequent pope, who were referred to as vicars of peter.\n\nAnti catholic interest have made much of the numerical equivalent.
704447
Several sites agree that the number is stated differently in different publications.\n\nThe 25 you mention are the names inscribed in the Winchester Round Table. Other knights may have been at this table at various times, and were part of various Knight orders.
627342
ok, this is found in the 4th quadrant, the order is as follows\n\n(x,y) 1st\n(-x,y) 2nd\n(-x,-y) 3rd\n(x,-y) 4th\n\nhope this helps\n\nmatttlocke
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.
452386
7*6*5*4 = 840 if order matters.\n\n7*6*5*4 / 4! = 35 if order does not matter
166612
0.5 is technically five tenths, so it is plural - you have five tenths of something. However, 5/10 simplifies of course to "one half" which is singular, so it's all a matter of perspective. Strictly speaking, however, it is definitely plural when specified as 0.5.
291700
1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10
164812
If it does not contain a decimal place I guess:\n5?
758845
NO!\nThe cardinality of the integers the same as that for the rational numbers for instance.  Denoted aleph (א)-null, this "infinity" is "countable", i.e., it can be put in a 1-1 correspondence (bijection) with the natural numbers.\n\nThe cardinality of the real numbers is higher.( א-one *) the number of real numbers cannot be put into a 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers.\n\nThe number of possible curves in a plane is even higher (א)-two\nETC.......(ad infinitum - no pun intended)\n\nWhat is strange here is that the number of odd natural numbers is the same as the number of all natural numbers, even though the former is a subset of the latter!  That is because a bijection exists between the two sets.\nFor example, let every natural number x be associated with the number 2x-1.   The pairings are:\n1 - 1\n2 - 3\n3 - 5\n4 - 7\n5 - 9\netc.\nEvery natural number is paired with every odd natural number.  Thus the sets have the same cardinality.\nNo bijection exists between these countable sets and say, the real numbers however.  In fact, if you pick ANY two numbers, no matter HOW CLOSE TOGETHER, there are still more real numbers between them than all rational numbers combined. The proof of this is rather cumbersome for here, I suggest you read up on Georg Cantor or infinite sets elsewhere\n\n*It is my "choice" to accept as convention (one side or another of) the continuum hypothesis - it doesnt really matter, but as one answerer pointed out the real numbers' cardinality usually represented as 'c' (Although I never liked that designation-too easily misinterpreted as something else.  I can try to sway supporters, cant I?)
575986
is five * ten to the power sixty one.  can u believe i actually counted it.. oh my eyes are paining
796039
(5 * 5 * 5 - 5) / 5 + 5 * 5