Search a number
-
+
3320122333001 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin110000010100000110101…
…101100101011101001001
3102202101211000220201202212
4300110012231211131021
5413344102304124001
611021124304034505
7461604504122345
oct60240655453511
912671730821685
103320122333001
111070068557651
12457566302a35
131b1117499216
14b69a2686625
155b56d7857bb
hex30506b65749

3320122333001 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 3320122333002. Its totient is φ = 3320122333000.

The previous prime is 3320122332983. The next prime is 3320122333027. The reversal of 3320122333001 is 1003332210233.

It is a weak prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 1806604810000 + 1513517523001 = 1344100^2 + 1230251^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 3320122333001 - 218 = 3320122070857 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×33201223330012 (a number of 26 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (3320122333061) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (19) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 1660061166500 + 1660061166501.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (1660061166501).

Almost surely, 23320122333001 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

3320122333001 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

3320122333001 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

3320122333001 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 1944, while the sum is 23.

Adding to 3320122333001 its reverse (1003332210233), we get a palindrome (4323454543234).

The spelling of 3320122333001 in words is "three trillion, three hundred twenty billion, one hundred twenty-two million, three hundred thirty-three thousand, one".