Multiples of 9 and 6 are also divisible by three, the reverse is not true. 15 is divisible by 3, but not 6 or 9. 27 is divisible by 3 and 9, but not 6. 12 is divisible by 3 and 6, but not 9. 54 is divisible by 3, 6 and 9.
Using the tests for divisibility:Divisible by 3:Add the digits and if the sum is divisible by 3, so is the original number: 6 + 8 + 4 = 18 which is divisible by 3, so 684 is divisible by 3Divisible by 6:Number is divisible by 2 and 3: Divisible by 2:If the number is even (last digit divisible by 2), then the whole number is divisible by 2. 684 is even so 684 is divisible by 2.Divisible by 3:Already shown above to be divisible by 3. 684 is divisible by both 2 & 3 so 684 is divisible by 6Divisible by 9:Add the digits and if the sum is divisible by 9, so is the original number: 6 + 8 + 4 = 18 which is divisible by 9, so 684 is divisible by 9Thus 684 is divisible by all 3, 6 & 9.
Out of that list, 3 is the only factor of 429. But you knew that. You knew it couldn't be divisible by 2 or 6 because it's an odd number. You knew it couldn't be divisible by 5 because it doesn't end in 0 or 5 and you knew it couldn't be divisible by 9 because the digits don't add up to a multiple of 9.
312 is divisible by 9 but the answer is not a whole number, it is... 34.666 recurring.
40 is divisible by 5 and 10, but not by 9 because 40 is a multiple of 5 and 10 but not of 9.
The list of numbers that are exactly divisible by 9 is infinite. The first four are: 9, 18, 27, 36 . . .
No, it is not.
No
The smallest number which is exactly divisible by the numbers 8 9 and 10 is 360.
Yes. 117 is evenly divisible by nine.
20 is divisible by 2, 5 and 10. It is not exactly divisible by 3 or 9.
No.
Not exactly because it will have a remainder
Not exactly because it will have a remainder
Not exactly because it will have a remainder
Not exactly because it will have a remainder
Yes, it is divisible by 2, 3 and 9, but is not exactly divisible by 5 or 10.