No, 102 and 321 are not relatively prime. Relatively prime numbers only have the number 1 as a common factor. 102 and 321 have other common factors, like 3.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoA prime number has only 2 factors which are 1 and itself. Composite numbers are everything else except 1 and 0. 1 and 0 are neither prime, nor composite. 45 and 102 are both composite.
The prime factors of 102 are: 2, 3, 17
321 is a composite number because it has factors other than 1 and itself. It is not a prime number.The 4 factors of 321 are 1, 3, 107, and 321.The factor pairs of 321 are 1 x 321 and 3 x 107.The proper factors of 321 are 1, 3, and 107 or,if the definition you are using excludes 1, they are 3 and 107.The prime factors of 321 are 3 and 107.The distinct prime factors (listing each prime factor only once) of 321 are also 3 and 107.The prime factorization of 321 is 3 x 107.NOTE: There cannot be common factors, a greatest common factor, or a least common multiple because "common" refers to factors or multiples that two or more numbers have in common.
24 and 49 are relatively prime. Their only common factor is 1. All the other pairs have more than the number 1 as a common factor.
No, they are not relatively prime.
No.
No :P
Both are divisible by 3.
No, they're both divisible by three.
321 = 3*107.
A prime number has only 2 factors which are 1 and itself. Composite numbers are everything else except 1 and 0. 1 and 0 are neither prime, nor composite. 45 and 102 are both composite.
No, 321 is composite. 3 x 107 precludes 321 from being prime on the basis that prime numbers may only consist of a factor of one and itself.
321 = 3 x 107
No, they are not relatively prime.
The prime factors of 102 are: 2, 3, 17
The prime factorization of 102 = 2 * 3 * 17
Any multiple of 3 will not be relatively prime to 9 because they will both have 3 as a common factor. Some of these numbers are 3, 6, 12, 39, 102, and 372.