TIME REMAINING 01:37:16 Absalom states that 0 is a rational number. Which is a correct explanation for this statement? The number 0 is a whole number, which is part of the rational numbers. The number 0 is the center of the number line. The number 0 is a natural number, which is part of the rational numbers. The number 0 cannot be written as a fraction.

The number 0 is a whole number, which is part of the rational numbers, is correct.

Step-by-step explanation:

Absalom states that 0 is a rational number.

As the whole numbers are 0,1,2,3,... which is starting from 0, so the stated number 0 is a part of the whole number.

As all the whole number are rational numbers, so 0 is a rational number

Hence, the explanation (i) which is,

The number 0 is a whole number, which is part of the rational numbers, is correct.

The naturals numbers are 1,2,3,... which starts from 1, so 0 is not a part of the natural number, and the number 0 can be written as a fraction like .

Hence, statement (ii) The number 0 is a natural number, which is part of the rational numbers as well as the statement (iii) The number 0 cannot be written as a fraction, are wrong.

The number 0 is a whole number, which is part of the rational numbers.

Step-by-step explanation:

reduce the friction between its moving parts

step-by-step explanation:

in fact, by reducing the friction between the moving parts of the machine, it is possible to reduce the energy wasted due to this friction; therefore, more input energy is converted into useful work, and this will improve the efficiency of the machine.