2 x 2 x 3 x 3 = 36
A decimal number cannot be written as the product of primes. Instead, It could be rounded, then factorised. 78 = 2*3*13 , 77 = 7*11
2^2 x 3^2
95 is the product of two primes, 5 and 19.
76 = 2 x 2 x 19 OR 22 x 19
Sure. All composite numbers can be written as a product of primes. It shouldn't be tough to find a composite number that's the sum of three other composite numbers. Let's try 30. 2 x 3 x 5 = 30 Product of primes, check. 6 (2 x 3) + 10 (2 x 5) + 14 (2 x 7) = 30 Sum of three products of primes, check.
The largest integer that is not the product of two or more different primes would be the largest prime number. Because there are an infinite number of prime numbers, there is no largest integer that is not the product of two or more different primes.
2x11x13x13
Hi... Every integer can be expressed as the product of prime numbers (and these primes are it's factors). Since we can multiply any integer by 2 to create a larger integer which can also be expressed as the product of primes, and this number has more prime factors than the last, we can always get a bigger number with more prime factors. Therefore, there is no definable number with the most primes (much like there is no largest number)!
3 x 13 = 39
There are no two primes whose product is 50.There are no two primes whose product is 50.There are no two primes whose product is 50.There are no two primes whose product is 50.
A decimal number cannot be written as the product of primes. Instead, It could be rounded, then factorised. 78 = 2*3*13 , 77 = 7*11
The fundamental theorem of arithmetic says any integer can be factored into a unique product of primes. The is the prime factored form.
The products of the primes are the composites.
1450 as a product of primes = 2 * 5 * 5 * 29
2^2 x 3^2
If by "least number" you mean "smallest positive integer", then the answer is the product of the three smallest primes: 2x3x5 = 30
359 itself is a prime number.So, written as the product of primes, it's . . . . .1 x 359