0
No, 12 and 15 aren't relatively prime, because they both share as a prime factor 3. Dividing both12 and 15 by 3 gives 4 and 5 respectively. Consecutive numbers are always coprime. Coprime numbers are relatively prime to each other, as they share no prime factors, for example 33 and 35,
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Steve
Maxine
LaoAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is 12 and 35 relatively prime?
12 and 35 are NOT prime numbers.
What pair of numbers between 200 and 300 has a gcf of 18?
To have a gcf of 18 they must have one factor of 18 in common and no other factor, ie the second factor of the numbers must be relatively prime. The multiples of 18 between 200 and 300 are: 12 x 18 = 216 13 x 18 = 234 14 x 18 = 252 15 x 18 = 270 16 x 18 = 288 12 is relatively prime to 13 13 is relatively prime to 14, 15 & 16 14 is relatively prime to 15 15 is relatively prime to 16 (Pairs of numbers are being considered, so as 12 is relatively prime to 13, 13 is also relatively prime to 12 and thus is only listed when the numbers increase, ie under 12 and not under 13.) Thus the pairs: 216 & 234 234 & 252 234 & 270 234 & 288 252 & 270 270 & 288 all have a gcf of 18.
Is 45 and 64 relatively prime?
Numbers are either prime or they aren't. In this case, 45 is divisible by 3 and 15; sixty-four goes into 2, 4, 8 and 32. The term "relatively prime" compares two numbers and their common factors. If the GCF of the two numbers is 1, then they are "relatively prime."
Are 22 and 64 relatively prime?
22 is not relatively prime
Are 20 88 and 165 relatively prime?
yes, they are relatively prime.
