Search a number
-
+
66263444436269 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin11110001000100001010010…
…00100010011010100101101
322200121201112101010001101202
433010100221010103110231
532141130013233430034
6352533001154015245
716646242632261563
oct1704205104232455
9280551471101352
1066263444436269
111a128194999763
127522371577525
132ac880146b2b2
14125124c713a33
1579d9e6ce647e
hex3c442911352d

66263444436269 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 66263444436270. Its totient is φ = 66263444436268.

The previous prime is 66263444436253. The next prime is 66263444436313. The reversal of 66263444436269 is 96263444436266.

It is a weak prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 55313996526244 + 10949447910025 = 7437338^2 + 3308995^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 66263444436269 - 24 = 66263444436253 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×662634444362692 (a number of 28 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (66263444436209) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (19) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 33131722218134 + 33131722218135.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (33131722218135).

Almost surely, 266263444436269 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

66263444436269 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

66263444436269 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

66263444436269 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its digits is 644972544, while the sum is 65.

The spelling of 66263444436269 in words is "sixty-six trillion, two hundred sixty-three billion, four hundred forty-four million, four hundred thirty-six thousand, two hundred sixty-nine".