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,
22 is not relatively prime
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.
yes, they are relatively prime.
Yes, 62 and 121 are relatively prime
Yes, 35 and 54 are relatively prime.
No, they are not relatively prime.
34, 36 and 12
10 and 35 are not relatively prime because they share the prime factor 5.
It can be. 34 is relatively prime to 35. 34 is not relatively prime to 40.
25 is relatively prime with 36. 25 is not relatively prime with 35.
Yes. Since 12 = 2*2*3 and 35 = 5*7 they share no divisors. Their greatest common divisor is 1, and they are relatively prime.
Yes, 6 and 35 are relatively prime because they do not share any prime factors
No.
No, they are not.
no
No, they are not.