No, they are not relatively prime.
No, 234 and 2145 are not relatively prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
No.
Yes
No.No.No.No.
To have a gcf of 18 they must have one factor of 18 in common and no other factor, ie the second factor of the numbers must be relatively prime. The multiples of 18 between 200 and 300 are: 12 x 18 = 216 13 x 18 = 234 14 x 18 = 252 15 x 18 = 270 16 x 18 = 288 12 is relatively prime to 13 13 is relatively prime to 14, 15 & 16 14 is relatively prime to 15 15 is relatively prime to 16 (Pairs of numbers are being considered, so as 12 is relatively prime to 13, 13 is also relatively prime to 12 and thus is only listed when the numbers increase, ie under 12 and not under 13.) Thus the pairs: 216 & 234 234 & 252 234 & 270 234 & 288 252 & 270 270 & 288 all have a gcf of 18.
prime numbers of 234 = 2, 3, 13
The prime factors of 234 are: 2, 3 and 13
234 is composite.
The smallest prime factor of 195 is three.
No, they are not relatively prime.
It is: 3*5*13 = 195