22 is not relatively prime
yes, they are relatively prime.
Yes, 62 and 121 are relatively prime
211 is a prime number, and is not a factor of 210, so yes, they are relatively prime.
Yes, 45 and 64 are relatively prime because they do not share any prime factors.
Both are not prime numbers, but they are relatively prime.
They are coprime or relatively prime, having a GCF of 1.
160 and 189 are relatively prime as they have no common factors other than 1.
No, they can be divided. For example, 3 is a prime number because its only factors are 1 and 3. 80 is a prime number because it can be divided by 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, etc. 189 can be divided by 1, 3, 63, etc.
The prime factorisation (not fractional!) of 189 is:189 = 3*3*3*7The prime factorisation (not fractional!) of 189 is:189 = 3*3*3*7The prime factorisation (not fractional!) of 189 is:189 = 3*3*3*7The prime factorisation (not fractional!) of 189 is:189 = 3*3*3*7
20% off of 189 = 80% of 189 = 189*80/100 = 151.2
No. 189 is not prime because it is divisible by 9.
The prime numbers (factors) of 189 are: 3 and 7
No, because 1 is not their only common factor. The number 3 is also a common factor.
No. each number has more factors than just 1 and 64 or 1 and 80
They are: 333*7 = 189
Neither 189 nor 1500 are prime factors.