No, 42 and 68 are not relatively prime. They have more than the number 1 as a common factor.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoWiki User
∙ 7y agoNo, because 1 is not their only common factor. The number 3 is also a common factor.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoA single number, such as 2664, cannot be relatively prime.
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago2842 is a single number which is a composite, not a prime.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoNo, they are not.
Wiki User
∙ 8y agono, because 42 has multiple factors
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoYes.
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoyes
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoYes.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agoNo.
Yes, 96 and 105 are relatively prime because they have no prime factors in common.
No. To be relatively prime, numbers have to have a GCF of 1. Numbers ending in 5 are divisible by 5.
It is: 630 by finding the prime factors of the given numbers
Any prime number is relatively prime to 7, such as 2, 3, 5, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, ... Because 7 is a prime number, any number that does not have 7 as a factor is relatively prime to 7, such as 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, ...
30, 42, 66, 78, 102, 105, 114, 138 all have exactly three distinct prime factors.
No, they are not relatively prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
No, 42 and 108 are not relatively prime. Two even numbers cannot be relatively prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
no
No.
Yes, 96 and 105 are relatively prime because they have no prime factors in common.
No.
no because it is just not
Eleven numbers less than 105 are relatively prime to 105. They are 82, 83, 86, 88, 89, 92, 94, 97, 101, 103, and 104.
jerks