No - it is not wholly divisible by 2.
162 ÷ 4 = 40½ or 40.5 or 40 with a remainder of 2.
6 is not divisible by 162. 162 is divisible by 6.
Yes, 648 divided by 4 is 162.
No.
No. 162 is not evenly divisible by 12.
its divisible by two
Yes, 162 is divisible by 2 because it is an even number. In mathematical terms, a number is divisible by 2 if it can be divided evenly by 2 without leaving a remainder. When 162 is divided by 2, the result is 81, which is a whole number without any remainder, confirming that 162 is indeed divisible by 2.
No, any even number is divisible by 2, other than 2 itself. Prime means that it is divisible by only that number and 1.162 is divisible by 2. The answer to 162/2 is 81, which is divisible by 9.The prime factorization of 162 is: 2x3x3x3x3 (also known as: 2x34)
Only 24, 72 and 1432 are divisible by 4. All multiples of 4 are even, so 171, 1387 and 967 are not divisible by 4. To test for being divisible by 4 either: a) The last two digits (as a number) must be divisible by 4; or (easier) b) Add the ones (last) digit to the tens digit; if this sum is divisible by 4 then so is the original number. If repeated on the sum until a single digit remains, then this single digit must be 4 or 8 for the original number to be divisible by 4. 24: 4 + 2x2 = 8 → divisible by 4 162: 2 + 2x6 = 14 → 4 + 2x1 = 6 → not divisible by 4 70: 0 +2x7 = 14 → 4 + 2x1 = 6 → not divisible by 4 72: 2 + 2x7 = 16 → 6 + 2x1 = 8 → divisible by 4 1432: 32 → 2 + 2x3 = 8 → divisible by 4
Yes, the result is 162.
The infinitely many numbers of the form 162*k where k is any integer.
81: 8 + 1 = 9 which is divisible by 9, so 81 is divisible by 9 162: 1 + 6 + 2 = 9 which is divisible by 9, so 162 is divisible by 9 199: 1 + 9 + 9 = 19 → 1 + 9 = 10 → 1 + 0 = 1 which is not divisible by 9, so 199 is not divisible by 9. 1125: 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 9 which is divisible by 9, so 1125 is divisible by 9. So 199 is the only one not divisible by 9.
162 is divisible by: 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 27, 54, 81, and 162 You can make a factor tree or just try one number at a time starting from 1, which would be really slow