This site is a work in progress. New lessons are added regularly. Contact us

Divisibility Rules

Learning goals

  • Test for 22, 55 and 1010 by reading the last digit
  • Add the digits to settle 33 and 99
  • Check the last two or three digits for 44 and 88
  • Combine the 22 and 33 tests for 66, since they share no factor
  • Explain every rule by splitting the number with place value
  • State what divisible means, and tie factor to multiple

What “divisible” means

One whole number is divisible by another when you can divide them and nothing is left over. The number 2020 is divisible by 55, because 20÷5=420 \div 5 = 4 with a remainder of 00. The number 2323 is not divisible by 55, because 23÷5=423 \div 5 = 4 with a remainder of 33; that leftover 33 is what disqualifies it. Divisibility is all about the remainder being zero, nothing else.

The same fact can be stated three ways, and reading them as interchangeable will save you confusion later:

Each sentence says that 2020 can be cut into a whole number of equal groups of 55, here four groups, leaving none behind. Every whole number greater than 11 has at least two divisors: 11 and the number itself. Dividing by 11 gives one group holding everything, and dividing by the number itself gives one group of its own size.

The remainder is the only thing worth watching, so it is worth seeing rather than trusting. Below you choose how many dots there are and how many go in each row. Dots that cannot complete a row are drawn hollow, and those hollow dots are the remainder.

Divides evenly, or leaves a remainder

12 dots in rows of 5 make 2 full rows with 2 dots left over. So 5 is not a factor of 12. Dots laid out in equal rows, filling from the top left. Dots that do not complete a row are drawn hollow. Use the controls below the figure to change the number of dots or the row width.
Dots Rows of

12 dots in rows of 5 make 2 full rows with 2 dots left over. So 5 is not a factor of 12.

Dots laid out in equal rows. Choose how many dots there are and how many go in each row; dots that cannot complete a row are drawn hollow.

Set the count to 1010 and step the row width from 22 up to 66. Exactly two of those five widths leave nothing hollow, and each of the other three leaves a remainder you can count on the picture. Then set the count to 1111 and walk the same widths again. Every one of those widths leaves something over, which is what a number with no divisor in that range looks like.

The one idea behind every rule

There is a single move underneath all of these tests: break the number into pieces along its columns. Then throw away the pieces that are obviously multiples of your divisor, and test only what is left.

Try it on 2828 with a divisor of 44. Split 2828 into 20+820 + 8. Each piece is a multiple of 44 on its own, since 20=4×520 = 4 \times 5 and 8=4×28 = 4 \times 2. Push them back together and you are holding 55 fours alongside 22 fours, which is 77 fours in total. So 28=4×728 = 4 \times 7, and 44 divides it with nothing over.

The numbers 2020 and 88 did no special work there. Their counts of fours, 55 and 22, could simply be added because both pieces were measured in fours to begin with.

Watch that happen again with a divisor of 33. Both 1818 and 1212 are multiples of 33, since 1818 is six threes and 1212 is four threes. Put them together and you are holding six threes alongside four threes, which is ten threes. So 18+12=3018 + 12 = 30 is a multiple of 33 as well. Take them apart instead, and six threes minus four threes leaves two threes. So 1812=618 - 12 = 6 is a multiple of 33 too.

Nothing there depended on the numbers being 1818 and 1212. Two piles counted in the same unit can be added or subtracted just by adding or subtracting how many units each one holds. Write dd for that shared unit, and mm and nn for the two counts. What you get is the distributive property you have already met, read in reverse:

(d×m)+(d×n)=d×(m+n),(d×m)(d×n)=d×(mn).(d \times m) + (d \times n) = d \times (m + n), \qquad (d \times m) - (d \times n) = d \times (m - n).

So a number that divides two others also divides their sum and their difference. Every rule below uses this once. We split the number into two parts: a big part that is plainly a multiple of dd, contributing remainder 00, and a small leftover. Then the whole question rests on that leftover alone.

Splitting 836 into 830 plus 6836 separated into 830 (hundreds and tens) and 6 (ones). The 830 piece is a multiple of 10; only the 6 must be tested.836 = 830 + 68306tens and hundreds(a multiple of 10)ones digittest this
Split 836 at the ones column. The 830 part is built only from tens and hundreds, so it is already a multiple of 10, and therefore of 2 and of 5. Only the last digit, 6, is left to test.

Divisibility by 2, 5, and 10: read the last digit

These three are the easiest tests, and they share one reason: every column except the ones is a multiple of 1010.

Take 836836 again. The 800800 and the 3030 combine into 830830, which is 8383 tens, a clean multiple of 1010. And 1010 is 2×52 \times 5, so those 8383 tens are a multiple of 22 and a multiple of 55 as well. All three divisions therefore come out even on the 830830 part alone. Only the 66 is still waiting to be judged.

Nothing in that split was special to 836836. The tens, hundreds, thousands, and all columns to the left are made of tens, so any whole number, however long, can be written as

(a multiple of 10)+(the ones digit).(\text{a multiple of } 10) + (\text{the ones digit}).

So whatever decides divisibility by 22, 55, or 1010 has to live in the last digit alone. That is because everything else was already a multiple of all three.

Why only the last digit matters for 22, 55, and 1010#

Run the argument on 574574 before running it on letters. Peel the last digit away and you have 574=570+4574 = 570 + 4. That 570570 is 5757 tens, so it equals 10×5710 \times 57. And 1010 is 2×52 \times 5, so the same piece is a multiple of 22 and a multiple of 55. All three divisions therefore leave nothing over on the 570570, and each verdict rests on the 44 alone. The 44 is even, so 574574 is divisible by 22, and it is neither 00 nor 55, so the test for 55 fails. It is not 00 either, so 574574 is not a multiple of 1010.

Nothing there used the particular digits of 574574. Write any whole number as N=T+uN = T + u, where uu is its ones digit and TT is everything else. That leftover TT is built from the tens column and up, so it counts a whole number of tens: T=10×kT = 10 \times k for some whole number kk.

Since 10=2×510 = 2 \times 5, that piece is a multiple of 1010, of 55 and of 22 at once. So it leaves remainder 00 in all three tests. By the splitting idea from the last section, N=T+uN = T + u passes one of those tests exactly when the leftover digit uu passes it:

  • Divisible by 1010: the ones digit must be 00, the only single digit that is a multiple of 1010.
  • Divisible by 55: the ones digit must be 00 or 55, the single-digit multiples of 55.
  • Divisible by 22: the ones digit must be 0,2,4,6,0, 2, 4, 6, or 88, an even digit.

Any other last digit leaves a nonzero remainder, so the number fails.

A number whose last digit is even is called an even number, and any other whole number is odd. So “even” and “divisible by 22” are two names for the same property, and you check both by glancing at the final digit.

Worked example 1 Test 4,1704{,}170 for divisibility by 22, 55, and 1010

Everything depends on the ones digit, which is 00.

To see why the rest drops out, split off that last column:

4,170=(417×10)+0,4{,}170 = (417 \times 10) + 0,

where the 417×10417 \times 10 piece is 417417 tens, already a multiple of 1010. The leftover ones digit is 00, and 00 is a multiple of 22, of 55, and of 1010 at once.

So 4,1704{,}170 is divisible by 22 (the digit 00 is even), by 55 (the digit is 00), and by 1010 (the digit is 00). Any number ending in 00 clears all three tests together.

Check your understanding

Which of these numbers is divisible by 22 but not by 55?

Answer choices

Divisibility by 3 and 9: add the digits

For 33 and 99 the last digit is useless: 1212 is divisible by 33 but 3232 is not, and both end in 22. The right test is the well-known one, add every digit and check that sum. The digits of 531531 add to 5+3+1=95 + 3 + 1 = 9, which is divisible by both 33 and 99, so 531531 is too. This looks like a coincidence, but it comes out of place value as neatly as the last-digit rules. You only have to notice one thing about the numbers 10,100,1000,10, 100, 1000, and so on.

The key fact is that each of those place values is exactly one more than a multiple of 99:

10=9+1,100=99+1,1000=999+1,10 = 9 + 1, \qquad 100 = 99 + 1, \qquad 1000 = 999 + 1,

and 99, 9999, and 999999 are all multiples of 99 (and of 33). So suppose a digit dd sits in the tens column. That digit’s contribution d×10d \times 10 breaks into d×9d \times 9, which is a multiple of 99, plus a single leftover dd. Every column behaves the same way: it donates a multiple of 99 and leaves one copy of its own digit. Sweep up all those leftovers and you have the digit sum.

Why the digit sum decides divisibility by 99 (and by 33)#

Work it on 34743474 first. Written out column by column, that number is

3474=(3×1000)+(4×100)+(7×10)+4.3474 = (3 \times 1000) + (4 \times 100) + (7 \times 10) + 4.

Swap each place value for a multiple of 99 plus 11, using 1000=999+11000 = 999 + 1, 100=99+1100 = 99 + 1 and 10=9+110 = 9 + 1:

3474=3×(999+1)+4×(99+1)+7×(9+1)+4.3474 = 3 \times (999 + 1) + 4 \times (99 + 1) + 7 \times (9 + 1) + 4.

Multiply out, then sort the pieces into the multiples of 99 and the bare digits:

3474=(3×999)+(4×99)+(7×9)a multiple of 9+3+4+7+4the digit sum.3474 = \underbrace{(3 \times 999) + (4 \times 99) + (7 \times 9)}_{\text{a multiple of } 9} + \underbrace{3 + 4 + 7 + 4}_{\text{the digit sum}}.

Every column has handed over a multiple of 99 and kept only its own digit. The first group comes to 2997+396+63=34562997 + 396 + 63 = 3456, which is 9×3849 \times 384, so it leaves remainder 00. The question lands on the leftover 3+4+7+4=183 + 4 + 7 + 4 = 18, which is 9×29 \times 2. So 34743474 is divisible by 99, and dividing confirms it: 3474=9×3863474 = 9 \times 386.

Nothing there depended on the digits being 3,4,73, 4, 7 and 44, so now use letters in their place. Take a four-digit number with digits aa, bb, cc and dd, from the thousands column down. Its value is

N=(a×1000)+(b×100)+(c×10)+d.N = (a \times 1000) + (b \times 100) + (c \times 10) + d.

Swap each place value for “a multiple of 99, plus 11”, exactly as before:

N=a×(999+1)+b×(99+1)+c×(9+1)+d.N = a \times (999 + 1) + b \times (99 + 1) + c \times (9 + 1) + d.

Multiply out, then sort the multiples of 99 to one side and the bare digits to the other:

N=(a×999)+(b×99)+(c×9)a multiple of 9+(a+b+c+d)the digit sum.N = \underbrace{(a \times 999) + (b \times 99) + (c \times 9)}_{\text{a multiple of } 9} + \underbrace{(a + b + c + d)}_{\text{the digit sum}}.

The first group is a multiple of 99 whatever the digits are, so it leaves remainder 00. By the splitting idea, NN is divisible by 99 exactly when the leftover a+b+c+da + b + c + d, its digit sum, is.

For 33, note that 9=3×39 = 3 \times 3, so each of those 99s, 9999s and 999999s is a multiple of 33 as well. The same argument then shows that NN is divisible by 33 exactly when its digit sum is. A shorter number simply drops terms and a longer one adds more, namely 9,9999{,}999 and so on. Each is still a multiple of 99, so the rule holds at any length.

If the digit sum is itself unwieldy, add its digits, and keep going until one digit remains. For 9,9969{,}996 the digits give 9+9+9+6=339 + 9 + 9 + 6 = 33, and 3+3=63 + 3 = 6. Because 66 is divisible by 33 but not by 99, the original 9,9969{,}996 is divisible by 33 but not by 99.

Why the digit sum of 531 decides divisibility by 9531 split column by column: each place gives a multiple of 9 plus its digit. The leftover digits 5, 3, 1 sum to 9.531 = (5 x 99 + 3 x 9) + (5 + 3 + 1)5 x 99 + 3 x 9a multiple of 95 + 3 + 1digit sumdigit sum = 9, and 9 is divisible by 9,so 531 is divisible by 9
Each place value is one more than a multiple of 9, so every column hands over a multiple of 9 and keeps only its digit. Those leftover digits add up to the digit sum.

Worked example 2 Is 4,7284{,}728 divisible by 33? By 99?

Add the digits:

4+7+2+8=21.4 + 7 + 2 + 8 = 21.

Now test the digit sum 2121. It is divisible by 33, since 21=3×721 = 3 \times 7, but not by 99, since 9×2=189 \times 2 = 18 and 9×3=279 \times 3 = 27 step right over 2121.

If you cannot read 2121 at a glance, fold it once more: 2+1=32 + 1 = 3, which is divisible by 33 and not by 99, the same verdict. So 4,7284{,}728 is divisible by 33 but not by 99.

This also explains why every multiple of 99 is automatically a multiple of 33. If the digit sum clears the higher bar of 99, it has certainly cleared 33, because 99 is itself a multiple of 33.

Check your understanding

Find the digit that goes in the blank so that 5151\square is divisible by 99.

Answer choices

Divisibility by 4 and 8: check the last two or three digits

The rule for 33 used digit sums, but 44 goes back to the splitting idea, just one column deeper. The fact we need is that 100100 is a multiple of 44, since 100=4×25100 = 4 \times 25.

Take 1,7321{,}732 and cut it at that point, into 1,700+321{,}700 + 32. The 1,7001{,}700 piece is 1717 hundreds, and every hundred is 4×254 \times 25, so those 1717 hundreds come to 4×4254 \times 425 exactly. That piece leaves nothing over. The whole question drops onto the 3232, and 32=4×832 = 4 \times 8, so 1,7321{,}732 is divisible by 44.

The same cut works on any number, because the hundreds, thousands, and higher part always counts a whole number of hundreds:

N=(a multiple of 100)+(the last two digits).N = (\text{a multiple of } 100) + (\text{the last two digits}).

That part is a multiple of 100100, and therefore of 44, so it contributes no remainder. So divisibility by 44 depends only on the number made by the last two digits.

The very same reasoning, pushed out one more column, gives the rule for 88. Here 10001000 is a multiple of 88, because 1000=8×1251000 = 8 \times 125, so everything from the thousands column up is a multiple of 88. That is why divisibility by 88 depends only on the last three digits.

Why the last two digits decide divisibility by 44#

Take 7,3167{,}316 first. Splitting off the last two digits gives 7,316=7,300+167{,}316 = 7{,}300 + 16. That 7,3007{,}300 is 7373 hundreds, and a hundred is 4×254 \times 25, so the piece equals 4×1,8254 \times 1{,}825 and leaves nothing over. Only the 1616 is left to judge, and 16=4×416 = 4 \times 4, so 7,3167{,}316 is divisible by 44. Dividing confirms it: 7,316=4×1,8297{,}316 = 4 \times 1{,}829.

Now cut the same number one column further out, for 88. That gives 7,316=7,000+3167{,}316 = 7{,}000 + 316, and the 7,0007{,}000 is 77 thousands, each of them 8×1258 \times 125, so that piece is 8×8758 \times 875 and again leaves nothing. Everything rests on the 316316, and 316=8×39316 = 8 \times 39 with 44 left over. So 7,3167{,}316 is not divisible by 88, even though it passed for 44.

The 7373, the 1616 and the 316316 played no special part, so run it again with letters.

Write N=H+LN = H + L, where LL is the number formed by the tens and ones digits, the last two. The other piece HH is everything from the hundreds column up. Because HH is built only from hundreds and higher columns, it counts a whole number of hundreds. So H=100×mH = 100 \times m for some whole number mm.

Since 100=4×25100 = 4 \times 25, regroup it as H=100×m=4×(25×m)H = 100 \times m = 4 \times (25 \times m). So HH is a multiple of 44 whatever mm is, and it leaves remainder 00. By the splitting idea, NN is divisible by 44 exactly when the two-digit leftover LL is. Testing LL is fast, because it never exceeds 9999.

Stepping one column further out proves the rule for 88 in exactly the same way. Now 1000=8×1251000 = 8 \times 125, so the part of NN from the thousands column up is a multiple of 88. Only the last three digits remain to be checked.

Worked example 3 Is 53,61653{,}616 divisible by 44? By 88?

For 44, ignore everything but the last two digits, which form 1616:

16=4×4,16 = 4 \times 4,

so 53,61653{,}616 is divisible by 44.

For 88, keep the last three digits, which form 616616, and test that smaller number:

616=8×77,616 = 8 \times 77,

so 53,61653{,}616 is divisible by 88 as well. You have replaced a five-digit division with a check on 616616, and even that is quick: 8×70=5608 \times 70 = 560, and the remaining 5656 is 8×78 \times 7.

Divisibility by 6: combine 2 and 3

Some numbers carry no rule of their own. Instead you build a test from the rules for their factors. The tidiest example is 66.

Watch it happen on 4242. The last digit is even, so 22 divides it, and 42=2×2142 = 2 \times 21. The digit sum is 4+2=64 + 2 = 6, so 33 divides 4242 as well. Now look at the 2121 sitting beside that 22. It is 3×73 \times 7, so the factor of 33 was waiting inside the other half all along. Collecting the pieces gives 42=2×3×7=6×742 = 2 \times 3 \times 7 = 6 \times 7.

Because 6=2×36 = 2 \times 3, a number is divisible by 66 exactly when it is divisible by both 22 and 33. You already own both tests, so you just run them together. Confirm that the last digit is even and that the digit sum is a multiple of 33.

Why passing both the 22 test and the 33 test means divisible by 66#

Watch it happen on 7878, which passes both tests: it ends in 88, and its digits add to 1515. Passing the 33 test means 78=3×2678 = 3 \times 26. Now look at the partner 2626. Since 7878 is even and the multiplier 33 is odd, that evenness has to be coming from the 2626, and indeed 26=2×1326 = 2 \times 13. Substituting it back gives 78=3×(2×13)=6×1378 = 3 \times (2 \times 13) = 6 \times 13.

Now the same steps in general. Suppose a number NN is divisible by 33. Then N=3×qN = 3 \times q for some whole number qq. Suppose as well that NN is divisible by 22, so NN is even.

Look again at N=3×qN = 3 \times q. The multiplier 33 is odd, so the only way that product comes out even is for qq to be even. That means q=2×rq = 2 \times r for some whole number rr, and substituting gives

N=3×q=3×(2×r)=6×r,N = 3 \times q = 3 \times (2 \times r) = 6 \times r,

a multiple of 66. The argument leaned on 22 and 33 sharing no common factor above 11. That independence is what forced the extra factor of 22 to hide inside qq, rather than overlapping the 33.

This combining trick works whenever the two factors share no common factor bigger than 11, as 22 and 33 do not. It does not work to test 44 as “divisible by 22, twice”, because there the two factors are both 22 rather than different numbers. For 66 the split into a 22 and a 33 is clean, so the combined test is exactly right.

Worked example 4 Is 2,5142{,}514 divisible by 66?

Run the two tests that make up 66.

First, divisibility by 22: the last digit is 44, which is even, so 2,5142{,}514 passes.

Next, divisibility by 33: the digit sum is

2+5+1+4=12,2 + 5 + 1 + 4 = 12,

and 12=3×412 = 3 \times 4 is a multiple of 33, so 2,5142{,}514 passes that test too.

It clears both halves, so 2,5142{,}514 is divisible by 66. As a check, 2,514=6×4192{,}514 = 6 \times 419.

Check your understanding

Which number is divisible by 66?

Answer choices

Putting the rules to work

Together these tests are far quicker than long division. The rules pay off most when you stack several on one number to learn a lot in a single pass. Here is the whole toolkit:

DivisorTest
22last digit is even (0,2,4,6,80, 2, 4, 6, 8)
33digit sum is a multiple of 33
44number formed by the last two digits is a multiple of 44
55last digit is 00 or 55
66passes both the 22 test and the 33 test
88number formed by the last three digits is a multiple of 88
99digit sum is a multiple of 99
1010last digit is 00

Worked example 5 Which of 2,3,4,5,6,9,102, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 divide 7,3807{,}380?

Run each test on 7,3807{,}380 in turn.

The last digit is 00, so the number is even and divisible by 22, by 55, and by 1010 all at once.

The digit sum is 7+3+8+0=187 + 3 + 8 + 0 = 18, which is 9×29 \times 2, so the number is divisible by 33 and by 99.

Because it passes the 22 test and the 33 test, it is divisible by 66.

Finally, the last two digits form 8080, and 80=4×2080 = 4 \times 20, so it is divisible by 44.

So 7,3807{,}380 is divisible by every one of 2,3,4,5,6,9,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 1010. Notice how one digit sum (1818) settled both the 33 and the 99 questions, and the single trailing zero settled three tests by itself. The rules share their work.

Check your understanding

A whole number ends in 00 and has digit sum 1818. Which of these is it?

Answer choices

Common mistakes

Practice

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ)

Progressively harder sets of questions. Each opens on its own page.

Free Response Questions (FRQ)

Longer questions in parts, to be worked out on paper. Progressive hints, the answer on its own so you can check yourself and try again, then the full worked solution, plus a rubric to mark your own work against.

Free response Work it out on paper 5 questions Start →
More practice (optional)

Extra sets, as hard as the Challenge set. Each one opens on its own page.

More resources (optional)

Other explanations of this lesson, if you want a second take.

A bit of history (Optional)

A merchant adds a long column of figures. How does he know the total is right?

For centuries the cheap answer was this lesson’s digit sum. The trick was called casting out nines. You replace each number by the sum of its digits, throwing away any nines as you go. Then you redo the small sum on those leftovers alone. If the two results disagree, the total is definitely wrong.

Luca Pacioli, a friar who taught arithmetic in Venice, printed the method in 1494. His book is remembered for something else: it gave Europe its first printed account of double-entry bookkeeping. So the same volume that taught merchants to keep accounts also taught them to check accounts.

The check is not perfect. Two wrong answers can agree by luck, and it stays silent then. But it costs seconds, and a disagreement is proof of a slip. It works for one reason: a number and its digit sum leave the same remainder under nine, the fact you proved here.