They are divisible only by themselves and one.
They have only two factors
They all have two distinct factors.
No, 100 and 202 are not relatively prime. Relatively prime numbers only have the number 1 as a common factor. The number 1 is a common factor for them, but the number 2 is another common factor that they have, so they are not relatively prime.
That depends what you mean with a "young prime number". I believe that is not a common mathematical term.That depends what you mean with a "young prime number". I believe that is not a common mathematical term.That depends what you mean with a "young prime number". I believe that is not a common mathematical term.That depends what you mean with a "young prime number". I believe that is not a common mathematical term.
Two number are said to be "relatively prime" if they have no common factors - of course, other than the trivial factor 1. Even a prime number is not "relatively prime" to itself, since the prime number itself is the common factor. For example, the common factor of 7 and 7 is 7. Thus, the only situation I can think of where a number has no common factor with itself is that the number is 1.
Co-prime numbers have a common factor of 1.
Yes. The greatest common factor of 4 and 10 is 2, which is a prime number. The greatest common factor of 51 and 81 is 3, which is a prime number.
Neither is prime. In fact, they share a common prime factor.
5
No, that's not true.
77 is not a prime number. 36 is not a prime number. 77 and 36 are mutually prime as the only common factor they have is 1.
Usually it's 1, unless the composite number is a multiple of the prime number. Then, it's the prime number.
They are not relatively prime. To be relatively prime, the only common factor they could have would be the number 1. Both also have the number 3 as a common factor, so they are not relatively prime.
17 is prime, time can be prime, and people can be in their prime.