No, they are not relatively prime.
No, 57 and 96 are not relatively prime because they share a common factor of 3.
No.
No. Both 57 and 111 are composite numbers. Factors of 57 are 1, 3, 19 and 57. Factors of 111 are 1, 3, 37 and 111. They share two factors 1 and 3, so they are not relatively prime either.
No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
It can be. 26 is relatively prime to 27. 26 is not relatively prime to 34.
No, they are not relatively prime.
No.
Yes, 96 and 105 are relatively prime because they have no prime factors in common.
Yes.
No. Both 57 and 111 are composite numbers. Factors of 57 are 1, 3, 19 and 57. Factors of 111 are 1, 3, 37 and 111. They share two factors 1 and 3, so they are not relatively prime either.
57 + 96 = 153
0.5938
No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.No, there is no largest prime number. Also 57 is not a prime.
To be sure, prime numbers are a number which cannot be divisible by every number except for itself and one. Take 5 for an example. There is no possible number which is divisible by itself except for itself and one. So, 5 is a prime number.2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97 are all prime numbers to 100. Let's refresh our mind. Now, 57 has factors of 1, 3, 19, and 57. Let's remove the 57 and 1. Now, 3 and 19 are all the factors of 57.
57 an 100 are relatively co-prime, i.e. they share no factors other than 1 between them, so 57 over 100 is already in simplest form.
No, they are not relatively prime.
It can be. 34 is relatively prime to 35. 34 is not relatively prime to 40.