okay so a prime number is a number who's factors are only 1 and itself. and you want to find a number like that which has a square root...
which means that a number times itself is going to give you your number. but that means that there needs to be another factor besides for just 1 and itself.
unless the number is 1.
(but i'm not sure that 1 is considered prime... ut if it is then 1 is your answer)
2007-01-11 17:25:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by brookbabe90 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
1
2007-01-12 01:44:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by bbillnextech 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
1
â1=1
2007-01-12 01:49:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
off the top of my head..Isn't an "integer" a whole number? If it is, then the answer to your question is NO. To be prime it would have to be divisible only by 1 and itself. A number times itself is said to be the square root of the product of the equation...therefore, I don't see how a number could be prime, whole, and a square root. Of course, this is if an "integer" has to be a whole number.
2007-01-12 01:30:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by maxiesmom 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
1 maybe
if the number 1 is prime, then it's square root is an integer. 1..
if it isn't, then there are no prime numbers that have an integral square root.
so, is 1 prime or not? according to some of you yes. others no. Turns out, like astronomers and pluto, some mathematicians got together and demoted 1.
in the 19th century, 1 was prime. now it isn't...
see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_numbers
2007-01-12 01:30:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dr W 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the number had a square root that was an integer, then it wouldn't be considered a prime number.
2007-01-12 01:27:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by athleticsfan12 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
1 is the only number. Aside from the number 1 the definition of prime is that it will only result in an integer when divided by 1 and itself. 1 is debated to be prime...see source.
2007-01-12 01:27:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by clearlyalienboy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, by definition no. If a number had an integral square root, that square root would be a factor. Therefore the number would not be prime.
2007-01-12 01:38:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Northstar 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
2
2007-01-12 01:23:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by Beautiful had a BOY on 3.7.09!!! 3
·
1⤊
3⤋
No, because that would mean it has a factor other than 1 and itself.
If anyone says yes and uses 1 as an example, this is incorrect. 1 is neither a composite nor prime number.
2007-01-12 01:23:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by smawtadanyew 2
·
2⤊
1⤋