-200, -20, -10 and 10
220
The factorizations of both numbers use 2 and 5, and each has only two other factors (for 220, 2 and 11 - for 390, 3 and 13, which represent the primes immediately following the ones for 220).
Yes; they are 51, 53, 57, 59.
For this kind of question, I would suggest looking up a table of prime numbers. As an alternative, you can try to find factors for each of the numbers - if it has a factor, it is NOT a prime. For this range of numbers, testing for prime numbers up to 13 is appropriate. (If 17 is a factor of one of these numbers, the other factor is less than 17, so you would already have found it before you reach 17.)
211 is the only prime number between 200 and 220
There are 48 prime numbers less than 220.
No.
The four consecutive prime numbers that add up to 220 are: 47+53+59+61 = 220
220 = 2 × 2 × 5 × 11
No, they are not relatively prime.
220 is a composite number, as are all whole numbers ending in zero.
Only 43 and 107 are prime numbers
4 of them, 3 distinct.
Oh, dude, 220 to the nearest hundred is 200. It's like rounding off numbers, but with bigger zeros. So, yeah, 220 is closer to 200 than 300. Easy peasy.
-200, -20, -10 and 10
220