144
72,2
36,2,2
18,2,2,2
9,2,2,2,2
3,3,2,2,2,2
I would assume so since 97 is a prime number.
Since 61 is already prime, a factor tree is not necessary. The prime factorization of 51 is 3 x 17, which wouldn't make much of a tree. More like a factor shrub.
13 is a prime number. It doesn't have a tree because its only prime factor is itself.
No you cannot. You might want to try the factor tree for 27.
The factor tree of 29 would consist of only the number 29 itself, as it is a prime number. Prime numbers have only two factors: 1 and the number itself. Therefore, the factor tree for 29 would simply show 29 at the top with no further branches or factors.
63 21,3 7,3,3
13270 6635,2 1327,5,2
by using a prime factor tree
well it would be 51
Their at the bottom of the tree because the hole point of a factor tree is to find the prime factorization of the number, so it would be at the bottom of the tree.
Since 31 is a prime number, you would simply make two branches: one for 1, and one for 31.
59 is a prime number and as such has only two factors: 1 and 59 A factor tree doesn't make sense for prime numbers since it would only have one branch: the number itself.