Search a number
-
+
33849229 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin1000000100011…
…1111110001101
32100200201102011
42001013332031
532131133404
63205301221
7560466541
oct201077615
970621364
1033849229
111811a477
12b404811
13702203b
1446d1a21
152e89604
hex2047f8d

33849229 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 33849230. Its totient is φ = 33849228.

The previous prime is 33849197. The next prime is 33849239. The reversal of 33849229 is 92294833.

33849229 is digitally balanced in base 2, because in such base it contains all the possibile digits an equal number of times.

It is a strong prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 27846729 + 6002500 = 5277^2 + 2450^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 33849229 - 25 = 33849197 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×338492292 = 2291540607788882, which contains 22 as substring.

It is a junction number, because it is equal to n+sod(n) for n = 33849191 and 33849200.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (33849239) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (13) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 16924614 + 16924615.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (16924615).

Almost surely, 233849229 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

33849229 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

33849229 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

33849229 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its digits is 93312, while the sum is 40.

The square root of 33849229 is about 5818.0090237125. The cubic root of 33849229 is about 323.4816082844.

The spelling of 33849229 in words is "thirty-three million, eight hundred forty-nine thousand, two hundred twenty-nine".