Oh, dude, like, totally! So, to check if a number is a multiple of 4, you just need to see if it's divisible by 4 without any remainder. And guess what? 58 is not divisible by 4 because if you divide 58 by 4, you get 14 with a remainder of 2. So, in short, 58 is not a multiple of 4.
If last two digits of a number are divisible by 4 then number is a multiple of 4 for a number with more than 21 digit
The number 12 has 4 and 6 as factors so 12 is a multiple of 4 and 6.
No, 16 is not the only square number that's a multiple of 4.
12 is the smallest multiple of 3 and 4.
No For example, 16 is a multiple of 4 but ends in a 6. 20 is a multiple of 4, but ends in 0. To check to see if a number is a multiple of 4, see if the last two digits are a multiple of 4 or '00'. If the last two digits are a multiple of 4 or are '00', the entire number is a multiple of 4.
Check it out: 4,8,12,16,20,24,28,32,36. No threes.
Oh, dude, like, totally! So, to check if a number is a multiple of 4, you just need to see if it's divisible by 4 without any remainder. And guess what? 58 is not divisible by 4 because if you divide 58 by 4, you get 14 with a remainder of 2. So, in short, 58 is not a multiple of 4.
It could be: 4*7 = 28
No - a smaller number can never be a multiple of a number, only a factor. But 4 is not a factor of 62, either.
It is: 4*12 = 48
If last two digits of a number are divisible by 4 then number is a multiple of 4 for a number with more than 21 digit
There is no such number. Since 4 more than that number would be a higher multiple. And 4 more than THAT number would be a higher multiple still. And so on.
There is no number that is "divisible by 4" and "not divisible by 4" at the same time - a number cannot be both a multiple of 4 and not a multiple of 4.
8 is a multiple and is not a perfect square.
There is no greatest multiple of any number: whatever multiple of 4 you say is the greatest I can always add 4 and get an even greater multiple.
The number 12 has 4 and 6 as factors so 12 is a multiple of 4 and 6.