Search a number
-
+
6411310469 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin1011111100010010…
…01101010110000101
3121112211000022120022
411332021031112011
5101112243413334
62540104344525
7314610145154
oct57611152605
917484008508
106411310469
1127a00214a3
1212ab175145
137b236a545
1444b6b959b
15277cd282e
hex17e24d585

6411310469 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 6411310470. Its totient is φ = 6411310468.

The previous prime is 6411310463. The next prime is 6411310471. The reversal of 6411310469 is 9640131146.

It is a strong prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 5261761444 + 1149549025 = 72538^2 + 33905^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is a de Polignac number, because none of the positive numbers 2k-6411310469 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×64113104692 = 82209803859817999922, which contains 22 as substring.

Together with 6411310471, it forms a pair of twin primes.

It is a Chen prime.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (6411310463) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (17) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 3205655234 + 3205655235.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (3205655235).

Almost surely, 26411310469 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

6411310469 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

6411310469 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

6411310469 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 15552, while the sum is 35.

The square root of 6411310469 is about 80070.6592267105. The cubic root of 6411310469 is about 1857.7286095021.

The spelling of 6411310469 in words is "six billion, four hundred eleven million, three hundred ten thousand, four hundred sixty-nine".