Since 61 is already prime, a factor tree is not necessary. The prime factorization of 51 is 3 x 17, which wouldn't make much of a tree. More like a factor shrub.
The square root of 64.36 is an irrational number. Consequently you cannot find the root using a factor tree.
32 16,2 8,2,2 4,2,2,2 2,2,2,2,2
480 240,2 120,2,2 60,2,2,2 30,2,2,2,2 15,2,2,2,2,2 5,3,2,2,2,2,2
630 315,2 105,3,2 35,3,3,2 7,5,3,3,2
by using a prime factor tree
idkrself find it you
You cannot really make a factor tree for 7 because it is already a prime number.
21 3,7
Since 61 is already prime, a factor tree is not necessary. The prime factorization of 51 is 3 x 17, which wouldn't make much of a tree. More like a factor shrub.
13 is a prime number. It doesn't have a tree because its only prime factor is itself.
No you cannot. You might want to try the factor tree for 27.
The square root of 64.36 is an irrational number. Consequently you cannot find the root using a factor tree.
69 3,23
13270 6635,2 1327,5,2
63 21,3 7,3,3
232 116,2 58,2,2 29,2,2,2