Yes. 108 is also divisible by: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 27, 54, 108.
36 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 & 36 * * * * * Wrong. These are number that divide 36 not numbers that are divisible by 36! Numbers that are divisible by 36 are the numbers in the 36 times table: 36, 72 , 108, 144, 180 etc.
All multiples of 36 (which are infinite) including 36, 72, 108, 144, 180, 216, 252, 288 . . .
36, 72, 108, 144, 180, 216 are some of them.
108 is divisible by 3.
The multiples of 36 (which are infinite) are all divisible by 36, including these: 36, 72, 108, 144, 180, 216, 252, 288 . . .
36 and all multiples of 36 all multiples of 36 that do not end in 0 (72, 108, 144, etc.)
36, 72, 108 and keep adding 36 until you reach infinity.
108 is divisable by 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 18, 36, 54, and 108
No. 29 is a prime number; 36 is not divisible by 29.No. 29 is a prime number; 36 is not divisible by 29.No. 29 is a prime number; 36 is not divisible by 29.No. 29 is a prime number; 36 is not divisible by 29.
To be divisible by both 4 and 9 a number must be a multiple of the Least Common Factor of 4 and 9. The LCM is 36. The first 3 digit number in each hundred that is a multiple of 36 are as follows :- 108, 216, 324, 432, 504, 612, 720, 828 and 900.
Oh, dude, a number that's divisible by both 12 and 9? That's like finding a unicorn at a coffee shop. But hey, technically speaking, the smallest number that fits the bill would be 36. So, there you go, a number that can keep both 12 and 9 happy.
No.First off, 120 is not divisible by 9. (The sum of the digits of 120 is "3"; a number is divisible by nine if and only if the sum of its digits is divisible by nine.) For that matter, it's not divisible by 36 either; since 36 is itself divisible by 9, any number which is not divisible by 9 cannot be divisible by 36.The smallest number that's divisible by 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 36 is "36" (it's also divisible by 4, which you left out).