2 7 6 3 Do you need 0 when you are out of the type?

If the column is calculated vertically, 0 is definitely needed. If you just produce results, you don't need it. Namely.

When taking off, the 0 at the end of the decimal is directly removed, and the result is 9. Except for the question that requires the result to retain one decimal place, the decimal must be simplified under normal circumstances.

According to the requirements, sometimes you need to keep one decimal place, then you definitely need to keep 0. There are also some research things, such as chemistry, or physical metrology, which are more important here and need to be retained as 0. In life, we don't need to keep 0 for general addition and subtraction or accounting

No, if it is specific to the application problem or there is an explanation to add 0, pure calculation is not used.

What does that mean? The column vertical calculation is 9, there is no 0 at all, and there is no need for 0.

No, just count it.

This is directly equal to 9, although you calculate it, but in mathematics, the decimal 0 can be removed, but it is only a part of the case, if there is a number after 0, it cannot be removed.

This can be removed in this equation.

If it's just a calculation problem, you don't need to.

If it's physics, it is.

Everything else is okay to write 9 directly.

The multiplicative distributive property can be applied.

Make simple calculations.

— Extract the common factor.

Extended Information: Multiplicative Distributive Property:

Adding (or subtracting) two numbers and multiplying another number is equivalent to multiplying the number by two additions (subtractions) respectively, and then adding (subtracting) the two products to give the same number.

Indicated by letters:

a+b）× c=a×c+b×c

Variant: a-b) c=a c-b c

Summary. Hello, the answer is as follows:

of the off-style. Hello, the answer is as follows:

Hello, the answer is as follows:

's simple method of off-form.

No, it's an easy way to do it.

Hello, easy calculation is as follows:

How?

Words are needed to explain this.

Method analysis: divide it, then divide it in turn, and divide it by 4

Strictly speaking, there is no easy algorithm for this problem.

Hello, the answer is as follows: This calculation is the most reasonable.

This question requires whether it is (can be simplified to be simplified), and if it can't, it is not necessary to abbreviate.

I don't recommend using easy calculations for this question.

No, the teacher's question requires a simple algorithm.

Because it is more troublesome to use.

Hello, then such a simple calculation is as follows:

Nor is it a law of arithmetic.

Everything is a law or a property or something.

Can you speak with your voice?

What is the off-form simple operation?

13/13 = 21 and 3/5 - 13/30 = 1/21 and 1/6 Hello, this question is incompatible, it is an infinite loop decimal, so the most accurate answer is in the form of fractions.

Except endlessly. If you don't learn decimals, then this question is wrong.

If you don't have a credit, then the question is wrong.

It's not that I didn't learn decimals, it's that I didn't learn fractions.

This is not possible at all, and accurate figures cannot be obtained.

Hello, I'm Mr. Zhang, I'm glad for your question and attack.

Xie Xiandu: Above, I hope Brother Zhao can help you. If recognized,!

Good luck with your learning and progress.

Off-type calculation of the old bucket Cheng such as pie containing the chain:

= Dustsun 1+