Search a number
-
+
1669860569081 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin11000010011001011011…
…100100010111111111001
312220122012110021002120202
4120103023130202333321
5204324333301202311
63315042351131545
7231433462433405
oct30231334427771
95818173232522
101669860569081
11594202837aa1
1222b768b13bb5
13c160c502393
145ab709aa105
152d684851e3b
hex184cb722ff9

1669860569081 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 1669860569082. Its totient is φ = 1669860569080.

The previous prime is 1669860569077. The next prime is 1669860569099. The reversal of 1669860569081 is 1809650689661.

It is a weak prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 1652767360000 + 17093209081 = 1285600^2 + 130741^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 1669860569081 - 22 = 1669860569077 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×16698605690812 (a number of 25 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is a junction number, because it is equal to n+sod(n) for n = 1669860568999 and 1669860569017.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (1669860569021) 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, 834930284540 + 834930284541.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (834930284541).

Almost surely, 21669860569081 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

1669860569081 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

1669860569081 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

1669860569081 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 33592320, while the sum is 65.

The spelling of 1669860569081 in words is "one trillion, six hundred sixty-nine billion, eight hundred sixty million, five hundred sixty-nine thousand, eighty-one".