The question does not have a solution.
For a composite number, x, the minimum sum of factors is 2*sqrt(x) - if the square root exists. That is the minimum, so if the square root does not exist, the sum of its factors must be greater.
72 = 49 so sqrt(50) > 7 so 2*sqrt(50)>14 so the sum of any composite number greater than 50 MUST be greater than 14.
* * * * *
The following correction is thanks to Betterthanyou122 . Unfortunately it was posted on the discussion page so the credit for the edit cannot go to BTY122.
I beg to differ with this, 54 works. 54/ \9 63+3+3+2=11, your desired sum / \ / \3 33 2
A composite factor is a factor that is a composite number, as opposed to a prime factor which is a factor that is a prime number.
139 is a prime number. Prime numbers have only one prime factor: the numbers themselves.
11
2 and 11
3 and 19
A composite factor is a factor that is a composite number, as opposed to a prime factor which is a factor that is a prime number.
A composite factor is a factor that is a composite number, as opposed to a prime factor which is a factor that is a prime number.
It is another composite number.
Since 160 is a composite number, it would be a composite factor.
It is a prime number.
21 is not a prime factor, it is 3 x 7
12 is a composite number, not a prime factor.
A prime factor of a number is a prime number that evenly divides the number. A composite number is a number having more factors than just 1 and itself.
34
You are 54.
No. The number 30 is composite and so it cannot be a prime factor.
24 is composite.