No, 234 and 2145 are not relatively prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
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 factorization of 960 = 26 x 3 x 5 Prime factorization of 2145 = 3 x 5 x 11 x13
prime numbers of 234 = 2, 3, 13
The prime factors of 234 are: 2, 3 and 13
234 is composite.
A number which is divisible by only itself and one is called a prime number. 2145 is not a prime number because it is divisible by 5. Remark: Any counting number ending with number 5(except 5 itself) is a composite number.
No, they are not relatively prime.
The prime factors of 234 are 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 18, 26, 39, 78, 117, and 234.The prime factorization of 234 is 2 x 3 x 3 x 13. The distinct prime factors of 234 are 2, 3 and 13.1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 13, 18, 26, 39, 78, 117, 234
It can be. 34 is relatively prime to 35. 34 is not relatively prime to 40.
It can be. 26 is relatively prime to 27. 26 is not relatively prime to 34.
25 is relatively prime with 36. 25 is not relatively prime with 35.