Search a number
-
+
96985494169 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin101101001010011001…
…0010011001010011001
3100021100002022120122121
41122110302103022121
53042111241303134
6112315435421241
710002251045524
oct1322462231231
9307302276577
1096985494169
1138149868273
12169682b4821
1391b8119795
1449a095dbbb
1527c977cab4
hex1694c93299

96985494169 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 96985494170. Its totient is φ = 96985494168.

The previous prime is 96985494121. The next prime is 96985494181. The reversal of 96985494169 is 96149458969.

It is a strong prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 56163312144 + 40822182025 = 236988^2 + 202045^2 .

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 96985494169 - 231 = 94838010521 is a prime.

It is a super-2 number, since 2×969854941692 (a number of 23 digits) contains 22 as substring.

It is an alternating number because its digits alternate between odd and even.

It is a junction number, because it is equal to n+sod(n) for n = 96985494098 and 96985494107.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (96985494469) 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, 48492747084 + 48492747085.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (48492747085).

Almost surely, 296985494169 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

96985494169 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

96985494169 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

96985494169 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its digits is 151165440, while the sum is 70.

The spelling of 96985494169 in words is "ninety-six billion, nine hundred eighty-five million, four hundred ninety-four thousand, one hundred sixty-nine".