Search a number
-
+
5723662421 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin1010101010010100…
…00010100001010101
3112202220002011210002
411111022002201111
543210224144141
62343541541045
7261560220311
oct52512024125
915686064702
105723662421
112477949324
121138a14785
13702a643c9
143c4238b41
1523774ee9b
hex155282855

5723662421 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 5723662422. Its totient is φ = 5723662420.

The previous prime is 5723662409. The next prime is 5723662433. The reversal of 5723662421 is 1242663275.

It is a balanced prime because it is at equal distance from previous prime (5723662409) and next prime (5723662433).

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 5702364196 + 21298225 = 75514^2 + 4615^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 5723662421 - 210 = 5723661397 is a prime.

It is a super-3 number, since 3×57236624213 (a number of 30 digits) contains 333 as substring.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (5723662121) 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, 2861831210 + 2861831211.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (2861831211).

Almost surely, 25723662421 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

5723662421 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

5723662421 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

5723662421 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its digits is 120960, while the sum is 38.

The square root of 5723662421 is about 75654.8902649393. The cubic root of 5723662421 is about 1788.7844207846.

The spelling of 5723662421 in words is "five billion, seven hundred twenty-three million, six hundred sixty-two thousand, four hundred twenty-one".