No, but vice versa holds true.
Case and point:
6 is a multiple of 2, but not a multiple of 4.
8 is a multiple of 4, and is a multiple of 2.
Because a factor of 4 is 2, every multiple of 4 is also a multiple of 2. But since 4 is not a factor of 2, rather, only half of it, only half of the multiples of 2 will be multiples of 4.
Because 2 is a factor of 4. If a number is a multiple of four, when you add that it is a multiple of 2 there is no extra information, no additional factor.
Yes. It's also a multiple of 1, 2, 16, and 32.
1 is a factor of 4 that is not a multiple of 2.
No, 90 is a multiple of 2 and 5, but not 4.
No. 2 is a factor of 4. 4 is a multiple of 2.
Any multiple of 4 is also a multiple of 2.
No. Any multiple of 4 is automatically also a multiple of 2. This is because 2 is, in turn, a factor of 4.
Most likeely.
Because 2 is a factor of 4. If a number is a multiple of four, when you add that it is a multiple of 2 there is no extra information, no additional factor.
yes 2x4=8 4x2=8 or 2x6=12 3x4=12 No, but any multiple of 2 is a multiple of 4. For example, 26 is a multiple of 2 (x13) but NOT a multiple of 4 (4x6=24; 4x7=28).
Because 6 is a multiple of 2 and not of 4.
If ordered by size, only every other multiple of 2 is a multiple of 4. All multiples of 4 are multiples of 2.
Yes. It's also a multiple of 1, 2, 16, and 32.
The LCM of 6, 9, 4, and 2 is 36. The LCM must include at least 2·2 to be a multiple of 4 and 3·3 to be a multiple of 9. 2·2·3·3 = 36 = which is also a multiple of both 2 and 6.
4 4 is the second multiple of 2 and the first multiple of itself, so it is the LCM of 2 and 4.
no, 2+8+4+2 (the digits) is 16 which is not a multiple of three. So it's not a multiple of 6 also
8 2X4, any multiple of 8 say n8 2X4Xn and is therefore divisible by both 2 and 4