No.
Every composite number has its own unique tree, so I guess the answer is all numbers have one tree. Perhaps you meant one branch or one factor. Prime numbers only have two factors, one of them is prime, so if you try to do a factor tree with a prime number, it stops the second you write the number down. And then there's one. One only has one factor, so we won't even bother with a tree. We'll call it a factor twig.
Since prime numbers only have one prime factor (themselves), factor trees are unnecessary.
47 | 47,1 Since 47 is a prime number, its only factors are one and itself. It's hardly worth drawing a tree.
A factor tree is one such.
199 is a prime number. It does not have a tree since it only has one prime factor, itself.
No.
Every composite number has its own unique tree, so I guess the answer is all numbers have one tree. Perhaps you meant one branch or one factor. Prime numbers only have two factors, one of them is prime, so if you try to do a factor tree with a prime number, it stops the second you write the number down. And then there's one. One only has one factor, so we won't even bother with a tree. We'll call it a factor twig.
Only one branch at the bottom of any factor tree.
173 is prime. Its only factors are one and itself. No branches on this tree.
263 is prime. It is only evenly divisible by itself and one. :]
Since prime numbers only have one prime factor (themselves), factor trees are unnecessary.
1423 is a prime number and therefore has only two factors which are itself and one
no
In the case of 27, there is only one possible factor tree - using the factors 3 and 9 as the first step. 27 3 x 9 3 x (3x3)
You don't. 41 is a prime number. Prime numbers don't have factor trees, since they only have one prime factor.
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.