0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Rafa
Ross
JordanAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Stephen says that the numbers 38 and 40 are relatively prime. Explain why he is incorrect?
Relatively prime numbers only have 1 as a common divisor. 38 and 40 have 1 and 2.
Is 70 and 195 relatively prime?
No, they are not relatively prime.
Are 52 and 143 relatively prime?
No, they are not relatively prime.
Is 92 and 274 relatively prime?
No, they are not relatively prime.
Are 42 and 66 relatively prime?
No, they are not relatively prime.
Is 40 relativley prime?
It can be. 40 is relatively prime to 41. 40 is not relatively prime to 54.
Is 34 relatively prime?
It can be. 34 is relatively prime to 35. 34 is not relatively prime to 40.
Are 30 and 40 relatively prime?
No, 30 and 40 are not relatively prime. Their greatest common factor is 10.
Are 40 and 63 relatively prime numbers?
ya they are relatively prime
Is 40 relatively prime?
One number, by itself cannot be relatively prime - or otherwise. Relative primality is a property of two (or more) numbers.
Are 40 and 21 relatively prime?
Yes.
Is 40 51 144 192 relatively prime?
No.
Is 40 relatively prime with 110?
No, they can be both divided by 10
Is -40 and 270 relatively prime?
No, both of them can be divided by 10
Is 40 an 135 relatively prime?
No, because 5 divides both 40 and 135.
Stephen says that the numbers 38 and 40 are relatively prime. Explain why he is incorrect in making this statement?
The numbers are not relatively prime, because they have a common factor of 2. To simplify, any pair is relatively prime, if their GCD is 1. In this case, GCD(38,40) = 2 which is not equal to 1, thus, they are not relatively prime.
Stephen says that the numbers 38 and 40 are relatively prime. Explain why he is incorrect?
Relatively prime numbers only have 1 as a common divisor. 38 and 40 have 1 and 2.
