Best Answer

No they do not, take a big Prime number and compare it to a smaller composite number. The number 6833 as only two factors (divisors), namely 1 and itself. But the number 68 which is much smaller has more factors or divisors. 68 has 2 and 4 and 17 and 1 and itself which is already more divisors than 6833.

🙏

🤨

😮

Study guides

☆☆

Q: Do bigger numbers necessarily have more divisors?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Related questions

composite

Divisors. Primes are divisible by themselves, and one. Composite numbers also have other divisors.

Well, not necessarily.

Not necessarily. For example a balloon is bigger than a baseball, but which weighs more?

To answer this question as it is written: not necessarily. An organism (bacterium) can be smaller than tissue (the cartilage in my ears). By definition, an organism is more COMPLEX than a tissue, but not necessarily bigger.

yes

All numbers of the from p2 where p is a prime. So 4, 9, 25 and 49. All the rest have fewer or more.

Assuming I understand your question, the answer is not necessarily. For example, the factors of 24 are 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, but the only factor of 25 is 5.

Not necessarily. Hurricane Charley in 2004 was relatively small but was a category 4.

Usually, but not necessarily and not if they're prime. All prime numbers have the same number of factors.

149162536496481100121144169196225256289324361400------------The above numbers are squares not perfect numbers. A perfect number n is one that is equal to the proper divisors of n. Here are the first few:628496812833550336858986905613743869132823058430081399521282658455991569831744654692615953842176191561942608236107294793378084303638130997321548169216I don't know if more of them are known. For more information see oeis.org.

No, your cells do not get bigger when you grow taller. Instead, they grow in terms of numbers by multiplying more.

Coprimes, or relative primes, are two or more numbers that share no common divisors. To determine whether numbers are relatively prime, find their greatest common denominaotr. If it's one, they're coprime.

Usually, but not necessarily and not if they're prime. All prime numbers have the same number of factors.

36 has nine of them.

Ants are in a bigger number compared to humans by millions and I'm sure they're are more species that are in bigger numbers to humans.

well look at the decimals if the first is bigger than its usally bigger the more numbers the smaller it is

Any number having more than two factors or divisors is a composite number. A prime number has exactly two divisors, 1 and the number itself, and 1 is not considered to be a prime nor a composite because it has only 1 proper factor.

Yes, 34 is a bigger number than 13. It represents more than 13, but in fractions, 13 is a bigger number. 1/13 is bigger than 1/34. So here is the answer: In positive numbers, yes. In fractions, no. In negative numbers, no.

A single number cannot have a greatest common divisor because "common" refers to divisors that two or more numbers have in common. You have only one number.

In math, the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two or more non-zero integers, is the largest positive integer that divides the numbers without a remainder.

You need at least two numbers to find a GCF.

Perfect numbers are numbers where all the factors add to that number. For example 6's factors are 1,2, and 3 and 1+2+3=6. Therefore the next perfect number isn't until 28 which is 1,2, 4, 7, 14 where 1+2+4+7+14= 28 An almost perfect number is a number which, when adding all of its proper divisors (all divisors except himself), gives you one less, or one more then the number itlself. Up to now all known almost perfect numbers are 2^n. So to answer your question, the 2 almost perfect numbers between 5 and 20 are 8 and 16. Divisors of 8: 1,2,4 -----> 1+2+4=7 Divisors of 16: 1,2,4,8 -----> 1+2+4+8=15

Not necessarily. 73 has far fewer prime factors than 72.

Called a composite number.