This question is easy and just takes logic. All numbers have at least 2 divisors, 1 and itself. So for a number to have 3 divisors, it must be a square number, with no other divisors. So this rules out even numbers. Square numbers above 100 are: 11 x 11 = 121 12 x 12 = 144 13 x 13 = 169 14 x 14 = 196 And so on. Already we can rule out 14 x 14 and 12 x 12 because they give us even results. So now lets look at 121 and 169. There is nothing below 11 that can divide evenly into 121 (except one) so therefore our answer is 121. 8) This question is easy and just takes logic. All numbers have at least 2 divisors, 1 and itself. So for a number to have 3 divisors, it must be a square number, with no other divisors. So this rules out even numbers. Square numbers above 100 are: 11 x 11 = 121 12 x 12 = 144 13 x 13 = 169 14 x 14 = 196 And so on. Already we can rule out 14 x 14 and 12 x 12 because they give us even results. So now lets look at 121 and 169. There is nothing below 11 that can divide evenly into 121 (except one) so therefore our answer is 121. 8)
which least number should be subtracted from 1000 so that 30 divides the difference exactly
In a set of numbers, the difference between the greatest and the least is called the range.
Well, honey, if you want to add the least number to 176 to get a sum greater than 300, you just need to subtract 176 from 300, which gives you 124. So, the least number you can add to 176 is 124 to get a sum greater than 300. Hope that clears things up for ya!
What is the units digit of the least whole number greater than 1000 whose digits are all different?
Oh, dude, the least number with exactly 8 factors is 24. It's like, got factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24. So, yeah, that's the magic number with just the right amount of factors to make it cool.
6
It is 6.
Least number with exactly n even divisors 1 -> 0 divisor 2 -> 1 divisor 4 -> 2 divisors = 22 8 -> 3 divisors = 23 12 -> 4 divisors = 22x3 32 -> 5 divisors = 24
An integer (call it 'x') has exactly 3 divisors if and only if it is the square of a prime number. In other words, to generate a list of integers with exactly 3 divisors, just keep squaring prime numbers. A number with 3 divisors cannot be prime (a prime number has only 2 divisors, 1 and itself). So it must be a composite number, which is a number that can be factored as a product of prime numbers (Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic) -- i.e. a composite number must have at least one prime divisor. In the case where the number has only 3 divisors, two of them are 1 and the number itself (neither of which are prime). Therefore the third divisor must be a prime number. So the three divisors of 'x' are: 1, p, x where p is prime. Now since p is a divisor (or factor) of x, and the only other divisor besides 1 and x itself, x must equal p*p -- or x=p^2 . Obvious x can't equal p*x and if x = p*1, x=p so x is prime, or has only 2 divisors... If x = p^(3) , then x = p*p* p , or p*(p^2) ... this means that p^2 would also have to be a divisor of x, and this would contradict with x having only 3 divisors. For the same reason, x = p^(greater than 3) is also not possible. So the only possibility is that an integer with exactly 3 divisors is the square of a prime number "p". The divisors are 1, p, and p^2. I'm sure there's a simpler, more elegant way of explaining this, but it should be clear enough.
Yes. Every number is divisible by itself or 1.
least prime number greater 60 = 61
what is the greatest or least from the number line negative or greater
1064 has exactly 64 zeros in it when it's expanded.Any number greater than 1064 rounded to the nearest 1064 has at least 64 zeros.
71 is least Prime Number that is greater than 69.
The least prime number that is greater than 45 is 47.
Yes, 78 is a composite number. A composite number is a positive integer that has more than two distinct positive divisors. In the case of 78, it has divisors other than 1 and itself, such as 2, 3, 6, 13, 26, and 39.
At least one other than 1 and itself. It can have infinitely many.