Yes. The answer is 169. DON'T CHEAT ON YOUR HOMEWORK!
169
________
3|507
-300
-------
207
-180
-------
27
-27
-------
0
507 is composite. It is divisible by 3, 13, 39, and 169, as well as by 1 and itself.
i do not know the answer please show your work for i could copy it
169
The prime factorization of 507 is 3 x 13 x 13
if the number is a 2 or more diget number, you add up all of the numbers in the number and when you have the sum, if the sum is divisible by 3 , the whole number is divisible by three EX. 123=6, 6 is divisible by 3 so 123 is divisible by three 447=15 is divisible by 3 so 447 is divisible by 3 989=26 is *NOT* divisible by 3 so 989 is not divisible by three this truly does work for every single number
1521/3 = 507
507 is composite. It is divisible by 3, 13, 39, and 169, as well as by 1 and itself.
i do not know the answer please show your work for i could copy it
7, 31, 49, 217.
Yes, all numbers are divisible by 3. However, if you mean whether it will divide by 3 exactly (without any remainder) to give a whole number result (an integer), then the answer is no. 1522/3 = 507 1/3 (five hundred and seven and a third).
169
The factors of 507 are: 1, 3, 13, 39, 169, and 507. The prime factors of 507 are: 3 and 13.
The divisibility rule of 3 is that you add the digits together and then if the number you come up with is divisible by 3, then the number itself is divisible by 3. In this instance, 5 + 8 + 5 = 18/3 = 6, therefore, 585 is divisible by 3.
For a number to be divisible by 3, its digit sum has to be divisible by 3. For a number not to be divisible by 2, the last digit must be a 1,3,5,7 or 9. Using these rules, the numbers between 500 and 600 that divide by 3 but not 2 become clear: 501, 507, 513, 519, 525, 531, 537, 543, 549, 555, 561, 567, 573, 579, 585, 591 and 597
3 x 507 x 2 equals 3,042
No, it is divisible by 3.No, it is divisible by 3.No, it is divisible by 3.No, it is divisible by 3.
One way to work it out in your head is to consider than 30 is divisible by 3, so you can ask if 140 is divisible by 30. It's not, since 14 is not divisible by 3. If the number was 129 or 159, both of those are divisible by three since both 12 and 15 are divisible by 3.