It can be. 21 is relatively prime with 32.
No, 100 and 202 are not relatively prime. Relatively prime numbers only have the number 1 as a common factor. The number 1 is a common factor for them, but the number 2 is another common factor that they have, so they are not relatively prime.
30, 42, 66, 78, 102, 105, 114, 138 all have exactly three distinct prime factors.
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.
No, 30 and 135 are not relatively prime.
No, 30 and 40 are not relatively prime. Their greatest common factor is 10.
No, 30 and 36 are not relatively prime. They share the factors 3 and 6.
12 and 30 are not relatively prime because they have two common prime factors (2 and 3).
No. Even numbers can't be relatively prime.
No!
No.
30 and 49 are relatively prime because the GCF (greatest common factor) is 1. The definition of a relatively prime number is two nonzero numbers that have a GCF of 1.
The gcf is 15; so 30 and 135 are not relatively prime. 30 = 2 x 3 x 5 135 = 33 x 5 hcf = 3 x 5 = 15 If the gcf of two numbers is 1, then they are relatively prime 15 ≠ 1, thus 30 and 135 are not relatively prime.
138 is not prime. 138 = 2 * 3 * 23
30 and 63 are relatively prime numbers. The factors of 30 are 1, 2, 3, 5, and 30, and the factors of 63 are 1, 7, 9, and 63. Two or more numbers are relatively prime if 1 is their only common factor.
A number cannot be relatively prime number by itself. It can only be relatively prime in the context of (relativeto) another number. That requires the two numbers not to have any prime factors in common.