Search a number
-
+
667670742481 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin10011011011101000100…
…01110000010111010001
32100211101010021221201211
421231310101300113101
541414342202224411
61230420153100121
766144334446301
oct11556421602721
92324333257654
10667670742481
11238180800a56
12a94956b7641
134ac65657972
142445b7b3601
151257ac2d221
hex9b744705d1

667670742481 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 667670742482. Its totient is φ = 667670742480.

The previous prime is 667670742463. The next prime is 667670742499. The reversal of 667670742481 is 184247076766.

It is a happy number.

It is a balanced prime because it is at equal distance from previous prime (667670742463) and next prime (667670742499).

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 445656380625 + 222014361856 = 667575^2 + 471184^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 667670742481 - 231 = 665523258833 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×6676707424812 (a number of 24 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (667670742461) 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, 333835371240 + 333835371241.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (333835371241).

Almost surely, 2667670742481 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

667670742481 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

667670742481 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

667670742481 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 18966528, while the sum is 58.

The spelling of 667670742481 in words is "six hundred sixty-seven billion, six hundred seventy million, seven hundred forty-two thousand, four hundred eighty-one".