Return to Answer

Consider adopting any of the common styles for code-formatting.
As-is, your current formatting seriously impedes readability.

#include <bits/stdc++.h> is a bad idea, sharply limiting portability ad increasing compile-times. See: How does #include <bits/stdc++.h> work in C++?
Just include those headers you need, which are <vector> and <iostream>.

You are courting conflicting symbols and general bafflement with any minor change of your toolchain. See: Why is using namespace std; considered bad practice?

You are using the popular for-if-antipattern. See Introducing the for-if anti-pattern
Why don't you just enumerate the ones you are actually interested in?

A for-range-loop is simpler than explicitly using iterators/indices. Unless you actually need them.

In the end you don't actually want that whole list, only whether one of them divides your input-number. So why store them at all, and why also those bigger than the input-number?

return 0; is implicit for main in C++.

Consider adopting any of the common styles for code-formatting.
As-is, your current formatting seriously impedes readability.

#include <bits/stdc++.h> is a bad idea, sharply limiting portability and increasing compile-times. See: How does #include <bits/stdc++.h> work in C++?
Just include those headers you need, which are <vector> and <iostream>.

You are courting conflicting symbols and general bafflement with any minor change of your toolchain. See: Why is using namespace std; considered bad practice?

You are using the popular for-if-antipattern. See Introducing the for-if anti-pattern
Why don't you just enumerate the ones you are actually interested in?

A for-range-loop is simpler than explicitly using iterators/indices. Unless you actually need them.

In the end you don't actually want that whole list, only whether one of them divides your input-number. So why store them at all, and why also those bigger than the input-number?

return 0; is implicit for main in C++.

Consider adopting any of the common styles for code-formatting.
As-is, your current formatting seriously impedes readability.

#include <bits/stdc++.h> is a bad idea, sharply limiting portability ad increasing compile-times. See: How does #include <bits/stdc++.h> work in C++?
Just include those headers you need, which are <vector> and <iostream>.

You are courting conflicting symbols and general bafflement with any minor change of your toolchain. See: Why is using namespace std; considered bad practice?

You are using the popular for-if-antipattern. See Introducing the for-if anti-pattern
Why don't you just enumerate the ones you are actually interested in?

A for-range-loop is simpler than explicitly using iterators/indices. Unless you actually need them.

In the end you don't actually want that whole list, only whether one of them divides your input-number. So why store them at all, and why also those bigger than the input-number?

return 0; is implicit for main in C++.

Consider adopting any of the common styles for code-formatting.
As-is, your current formatting seriously impedes readability.

#include <bits/stdc++.h> is a bad idea, sharply limiting portability ad increasing compile-times. See: How does #include <bits/stdc++.h> work in C++?
Just include those headers you need, which are <vector> and <iostream>.

You are courting conflicting symbols and general bafflement with any minor change of your toolchain. See: Why is using namespace std; considered bad practice?

You are using the popular for-if-antipattern. See Introducing the for-if anti-pattern
Why don't you just enumerate the ones you are actually interested in?

A for-range-loop is simpler than explicitly using iterators/indices. Unless you actually need them.

In the end you don't actually want that whole list, only whether one of them divides your input-number. So why store them at all, and why also those bigger than the input-number?

return 0; is implicit for main in C++.

Consider adopting any of the common styles for code-formatting.
As-is, your current formatting seriously impedes readability.

#include <bits/stdc++.h> is a bad idea, sharply limiting portability ad increasing compile-times. See: How does #include <bits/stdc++.h> work in C++?
Just include those headers you need, which are <vector> and <iostream>.

You are courting conflicting symbols and general bafflement with any minor change of your toolchain. See: Why is using namespace std; considered bad practice?

You are using the popular for-if-antipattern. See Introducing the for-if anti-pattern
Why don't you just enumerate the ones you are actually interested in?

A for-range-loop is simpler than explicitly using iterators/indices. Unless you actually need them.

In the end you don't actually want that whole list, only whether one of them divides your input-number. So why store them at all, and why also those bigger than the input-number?

return 0; is implicit for main in C++.

Consider adopting any of the common styles for code-formatting.
As-is, your current formatting seriously impedes readability.

#include <bits/stdc++.h> is a bad idea, sharply limiting portability ad increasing compile-times. See: How does #include <bits/stdc++.h> work in C++?
Just include those headers you need, which are <vector> and <iostream>.

You are courting conflicting symbols and general bafflement with any minor change of your toolchain. See: Why is using namespace std; considered bad practice?

You are using the popular for-if-antipattern. See Introducing the for-if anti-pattern
Why don't you just enumerate the ones you are actually interested in?

A for-range-loop is simpler than explicitly using iterators/indices. Unless you actually need them.

In the end you don't actually want that whole list, only whether one of them divides your input-number. So why store them at all, and why also those bigger than the input-number?

return 0; is implicit for main in C++.