It can be. 21 is relatively prime with 32.
209 is relatively prime (as is 211).
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.
Yes, 4 and 21 are relatively prime. Numbers that are relatively prime only have the number 1 as a common factor. That is the case with 4 and 21.
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.
26 and 99 is the only pair which is relatively prime.
Any prime number is relatively prime to any other prime number.
Since 167 is a prime, any number smaller that 167 will be relatively prime. So, the largest number less than 100, that is 99, is relatively prime.
A single number cannot be relatively prime. Any pair of numbers between 50 and 100 of which one is a prime will be relatively prime. There are 728 pairs of numbers that are relatively prime and I have neither the time nor patience to list them all!
The prime factors of 202 are: 2, 101
Both 87 and 100 are composite numbers.
The factors of 202 are: 1 2 101 202.The prime factors are: 2, 101
There are no two prime numbers that can be multiplied to get 202.
202 = 2*101
202 2 101 202 2 101
The GCF is 2.
No, they are not relatively prime.