Search a number
-
+
99103536365221 is a prime number
BaseRepresentation
bin10110100010001001010111…
…000101001011111010100101
3110222220012112211211102011001
4112202021113011023322211
5100442203020302141341
6550435311443513301
726605665006030343
oct2642112705137245
9428805484742131
1099103536365221
1129639634721973
12b146b19988831
13433b56721974b
141a688cb372993
15b6cd9c984d31
hex5a225714bea5

99103536365221 has 2 divisors, whose sum is σ = 99103536365222. Its totient is φ = 99103536365220.

The previous prime is 99103536365203. The next prime is 99103536365399. The reversal of 99103536365221 is 12256363530199.

It is a weak prime.

It can be written as a sum of positive squares in only one way, i.e., 82101974708196 + 17001561657025 = 9061014^2 + 4123295^2 .

It is an emirp because it is prime and its reverse (12256363530199) is a distict prime.

It is a cyclic number.

It is not a de Polignac number, because 99103536365221 - 229 = 99102999494309 is a prime.

It is a congruent number.

It is not a weakly prime, because it can be changed into another prime (99103536369221) by changing a digit.

It is a pernicious number, because its binary representation contains a prime number (23) of ones.

It is a polite number, since it can be written as a sum of consecutive naturals, namely, 49551768182610 + 49551768182611.

It is an arithmetic number, because the mean of its divisors is an integer number (49551768182611).

Almost surely, 299103536365221 is an apocalyptic number.

It is an amenable number.

99103536365221 is a deficient number, since it is larger than the sum of its proper divisors (1).

99103536365221 is an equidigital number, since it uses as much as digits as its factorization.

99103536365221 is an odious number, because the sum of its binary digits is odd.

The product of its (nonzero) digits is 7873200, while the sum is 55.

The spelling of 99103536365221 in words is "ninety-nine trillion, one hundred three billion, five hundred thirty-six million, three hundred sixty-five thousand, two hundred twenty-one".