No, 57 and 96 are not relatively prime because they share a common factor of 3.
3.
No, they are not.
no three is not a prime number
No, 30 and 36 are not relatively prime. They share the factors 3 and 6.
A number cannot be "relatively prime" except in relation to another number. For example, 8 and 15 are relatively primebecause they contain no prime factors in common.
27 is not a prime number and i dont know about 117 but i dont think its a composite # * * * * * The person who gave the above answer has no understanding of "relative primes". Or primes, for that matter. Neither 8 nor 9 is a prime BUT 8 and 9 are relatively prime (or co-prime) because they have no factor in common. That is what relatively prime means. 117 is not a prime, even if the previous answerer thinks otherwise. 27 and 117 are not relatively prime because both are divisible by 3.
No.
no
No, 57 and 96 are not relatively prime because they share a common factor of 3.
no it isn't because 4x2 =8.
Yes.
They are relatively prime.
no three is not a Prime number
Since they're relatively prime to each other, it's their product: 3 * 5 * 8 = 120
Yes, e.g. 3 and 5 are relatively prime, 27 (33) and 25 (52) are relatively prime...
If you don't include 20, 25 and 30, all of the numbers in that range are relatively prime to 25.