Square numbers have too many factors to be prime.
60 is neither a square number nor a prime number.
No but it can be a square number because 1*1 = 1
An oxymoron. Prime numbers can't be square. Square numbers can't be prime. You can square a prime number: 3 x 3 - 32 = 9
A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.
Square numbers have too many factors to be prime.
This is an odd question. I hope you understand that a "square number" is not the opposite of a prime number. Zero is not a prime. Zero is a "square number" since 02=0.
25 is both square and composite
No square number can be a prime number and conversely.
113 is prime, not square.
210 is neither a prime number or a square number.
60 is neither a square number nor a prime number.
No but it can be a square number because 1*1 = 1
An oxymoron. Prime numbers can't be square. Square numbers can't be prime. You can square a prime number: 3 x 3 - 32 = 9
A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.A square number, by definition, cannot be a prime so the answer is there are no such numbers.
a prime square
A prime number that is one more than a square number is known as a Sophie Germain prime. Sophie Germain primes are of the form 2p+1, where p is a prime number. For example, 17 is a Sophie Germain prime because it is one more than the square of 4, and both 4 and 17 are prime numbers. Sophie Germain primes have applications in number theory and cryptography.