Ask Question
31 March, 10:45

Jim makes the following conjecture: other than 1, there are no numbers less than 100 that are perfect squares and perfect cubes. what is a counterexample that proves his conjecture false?

+2
Answers (1)
  1. 31 March, 12:11
    0
    The number 64 is a counterexample to Jim's conjecture because it is the square of 8 and the cube of 4. A fast way to solve this problem is to list out the perfect cubes that are less than 100 and check if any of them are also perfect squares. A perfect square is a number which can be written as another number multiplied by itself, and a perfect cube is one which can be written as a number multiplied by itself twice. The perfect cubes less than 100 are as follows: 1*1*1 = 1 2*2*2 = 8 3*3*3 = 27 4*4*4 = 64 Now we can calculate perfect squares until we find one in this list 1*1 = 1 2*2 = 4 3*3 = 9 4*4 = 16 5*5 = 25 6*6 = 36 7*7 = 49 8*8 = 64 We see that 64 is in the list of perfect squares and perfect cubes, so this is a counterexample to Jim's conjecture.
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question ✅ “Jim makes the following conjecture: other than 1, there are no numbers less than 100 that are perfect squares and perfect cubes. what is a ...” in 📘 Mathematics if you're in doubt about the correctness of the answers or there's no answer, then try to use the smart search and find answers to the similar questions.
Search for Other Answers