Search a number
-
+
65066560115069 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin11101100101101011111010…
…01100111101000101111101
322112101022011110002211020102
432302311331030331011331
532012022303342140234
6350215055353130445
716463622005354312
oct1662657514750575
9275338143084212
1065066560115069
11198066339a3227
12736a4033b9a25
132a3c99a50ac16
14120d349d04d09
1577c7e58eec7e
hex3b2d7d33d17d

65066560115069 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 65066560115070. Its totient is φ = 65066560115068.

The previous prime is 65066560115003. The next prime is 65066560115099. The reversal of 65066560115069 is 96051106566056.

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., 44361421030969 + 20705139084100 = 6660437^2 + 4550290^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 65066560115069 - 224 = 65066543337853 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×650665601150692 (a number of 28 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (65066560115099) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (29) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 32533280057534 + 32533280057535.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (32533280057535).

Almost surely, 265066560115069 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

65066560115069 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

65066560115069 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

65066560115069 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 8748000, while the sum is 56.

The spelling of 65066560115069 in words is "sixty-five trillion, sixty-six billion, five hundred sixty million, one hundred fifteen thousand, sixty-nine".