Yes, they are relatively prime.
No, 57 and 96 are not relatively prime because they share a common factor of 3.
No, they are not.
3.
no three is not a prime number
Yes, 3 and 8 are considered coprime (or relatively prime) because their greatest common divisor (GCD) is 1. This means that they have no positive integer factors in common other than 1. Since 3 is a prime number and 8 is a composite number, their coprimality holds true.
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.
They are relatively prime.
no it isn't because 4x2 =8.
Yes.
Since they're relatively prime to each other, it's their product: 3 * 5 * 8 = 120
no three is not a Prime number
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.