Search a number
-
+
102330202001 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin101111101001101011…
…0101111011110010001
3100210010120022212110112
41133103112233132101
53134033012431001
6115002043211105
710251560236226
oct1372326573621
9323116285415
10102330202001
113a441805385
12179ba216a95
13985a4ca7b1
144d4a71194d
1529ddac4cbb
hex17d35af791

102330202001 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 102330202002. Its totient is φ = 102330202000.

The previous prime is 102330201989. The next prime is 102330202003. The reversal of 102330202001 is 100202033201.

It is a happy number.

It is a strong prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 98633683600 + 3696518401 = 314060^2 + 60799^2 .

It is an emirp because it is prime and its reverse (100202033201) is a distict prime.

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 102330202001 - 222 = 102326007697 is a prime.

Together with 102330202003, it forms a pair of twin primes.

It is a Chen prime.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (102330202003) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (23) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 51165101000 + 51165101001.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (51165101001).

Almost surely, 2102330202001 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

102330202001 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

102330202001 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

102330202001 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 72, while the sum is 14.

Adding to 102330202001 its reverse (100202033201), we get a palindrome (202532235202).

The spelling of 102330202001 in words is "one hundred two billion, three hundred thirty million, two hundred two thousand, one".