No. They have more than just the number 1 as common factors. They also have the number 7. Relatively prime numbers only share the number 1 as a common factor.
True. By definition for two numbers to be relatively prime they must not share any common factors. So their greatest (and only) common factor would be 1.
Okay. Give us a pair of numbers.
330
you have to give me the awnser beause if i dont get it right i can get an F% on my grades OK SO IF YOU DON'T GIVE THE AWNSER I'M GONNA TELL EVERYONE HOW FAKE YOU ARE OK!
Neither is prime. In fact, they share a common prime factor.
Two numbers are considered to be co-prime if they share no common prime factors, that is, if their GCF is 1.
Two numbers are considered to be co-prime if they share no common prime factors, that is, if their GCF is 1.
No, 57 and 96 are not relatively prime because they share a common factor of 3.
18 and 81 share only one prime factor: 3
They are both prime numbers. As such they share no common factors save 1
A batch.
Yes. Their only common factor is the number 1, so that means they are relatively prime.
Yes, the only common factor they share is 1.
In prime factors (divisors) 187 = 11x17 and 1000 = 2x2x2x5x5x5 So they share no prime factors and this is referred to as being co-prime or relatively prime. In this case the highest common factor (or greatest common divisor) is 1.
Since 23 and 29 are both prime, the only common factor they share is 1.
The numbers 7, 3, and 2 share no common denominator. They are prime numbers.