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.
The only prime factor of 4 is 2. No prime number is a multiple of 5.
It can be both. 4 is a multiple of 2, meaning 2 times something equals 4. 4 is a factor of 16. Meaning 16 divided by something is 4. Make sense?
No. 2 is a factor of 4. 4 is a multiple of 2.
4, 12, 20, 60
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.
No. 8 is a multiple of 2 and 4.
20 is a possibility.
The only prime factor of 4 is 2. No prime number is a multiple of 5.
It can be both. 4 is a multiple of 2, meaning 2 times something equals 4. 4 is a factor of 16. Meaning 16 divided by something is 4. Make sense?
1 and 2
No. Any multiple of 4 is automatically also a multiple of 2. This is because 2 is, in turn, a factor of 4.
1, 2 and 4
It's not. 4 is a multiple of 2. 2 is a factor of 4 because it can divide into 4 evenly with no remainder.
It must be 10.