Search a number
-
+
1638050412769 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin10111110101100011011…
…010011011100011100001
312210121002112211201120021
4113311203122123203201
5203314211401202034
63252302053113441
7226226262530041
oct27654332334341
95717075751507
101638050412769
11581769832811
1222556b928881
13bb610102494
14593d3da3721
152c921d656b4
hex17d6369b8e1

1638050412769 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 1638050412770. Its totient is φ = 1638050412768.

The previous prime is 1638050412763. The next prime is 1638050412847. The reversal of 1638050412769 is 9672140508361.

It is a weak prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 1472473037025 + 165577375744 = 1213455^2 + 406912^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 1638050412769 - 217 = 1638050281697 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×16380504127692 (a number of 25 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (1638050412763) 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, 819025206384 + 819025206385.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (819025206385).

It is a 1-persistent number, because it is pandigital, but 2⋅1638050412769 = 3276100825538 is not.

Almost surely, 21638050412769 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

1638050412769 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

1638050412769 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

1638050412769 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 2177280, while the sum is 52.

The spelling of 1638050412769 in words is "one trillion, six hundred thirty-eight billion, fifty million, four hundred twelve thousand, seven hundred sixty-nine".