Search a number
-
+
3494840269 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin1101000001001111…
…0000011111001101
3100000120011021120111
43100103300133031
524124134342034
61334442320021
7152414436454
oct32023603715
910016137514
103494840269
111533823248
128164b9011
13439080c2b
14252217b9b
15156c3d364
hexd04f07cd

3494840269 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 3494840270. Its totient is φ = 3494840268.

The previous prime is 3494840267. The next prime is 3494840311. The reversal of 3494840269 is 9620484943.

3494840269 is digitally balanced in base 2, because in such base it contains all the possibile digits an equal number of times.

It is a weak prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 2272428900 + 1222411369 = 47670^2 + 34963^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 3494840269 - 21 = 3494840267 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×34948402692 = 24427817011647984722, which contains 22 as substring.

Together with 3494840267, it forms a pair of twin primes.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (3494840267) by changing a digit.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 1747420134 + 1747420135.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (1747420135).

Almost surely, 23494840269 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

3494840269 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

3494840269 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

3494840269 is an evil number, because the sum of its binary digits is even.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 1492992, while the sum is 49.

The square root of 3494840269 is about 59117.1740613504. The cubic root of 3494840269 is about 1517.5480246113.

The spelling of 3494840269 in words is "three billion, four hundred ninety-four million, eight hundred forty thousand, two hundred sixty-nine".