No neither of them are because 3x3=9 so it is not prime. 8 is not either because 2x4=8
Yes, they are relatively prime.
You might be thinking of relatively prime numbers. Two numbers are considered relatively prime if their GCF is 1. 4 and 9 are relatively prime.
No.
Not necessarily. 4 and 9 are relatively prime and both are composite.
Two numbers are considered relatively prime when their GCF is 1. 4 and 9 are relatively prime.
Yes.
Yes, 9 and 23 are relatively prime.
Nine can only be relatively prime when compared to another number or set of numbers. 9 is relatively prime to 4, 9 is not relatively prime to 12.
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.
9 and 16 are relatively prime.
Yes, they are relatively prime.
The GCF of 9 and 26 is 1. 9 and 26 are relatively prime.
All numbers not divisible by 3 or 9 are relatively prime to 9. This would include 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, etc.
Yes, 9 and 16 are relatively prime. They do not have any prime factors in common.
Two numbers are considered relatively prime if their GCF is 1. 4 and 9 are relatively prime.
Numbers are co-prime, or relatively prime, if their GCF is 1. 4 and 9 are relatively prime.
Yes they have no common prime factors. 9=3X3 and 26=2X13 Since no primes equal they are relatively prime!