Study guides

Q: Is 70 and 195 relatively prime?

Write your answer...

Submit

Related questions

No, they are not relatively prime.

No.No.No.No.

No.

No, they are not relatively prime.

No, 65 and 70 are not relatively prime. Relatively prime numbers only have the number 1 as a common factor. 65 and 70 also have 5 as a common factor, so they are not relatively prime.

Yes

Yes, they are relatively prime.

No. they are not

Yes, they ARE.

No, they are not.

Yes they are. The only common factor they have is the number 1. They have no other common factors, which means that they are relatively prime.

They are relatively prime, so the gcf is 1

No because they are both composite numbers

Two numbers which are "relatively prime" have no common prime factors. To illustrate, let's write several numbers in terms of their prime factors: 24 = 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 25 = 5 x 5 42 = 2 x 3 x 7 70 = 2 x 5 x 7 You can see that 24 and 25 are relatively prime, because they don't share any common prime factors. Likewise, 25 and 42 are relatively prime. 24 and 42, however, are NOT relatively prime because they share the common factors of 2 and 3. Likewise 25 and 70 are NOT relatively prime because they share the common factor 5. When a fraction is in its simplest form, the numerator and denominator are relatively prime.

The smallest prime factor of 195 is three.

As a product of its prime factors: 3*5*13 = 195

Yes, easily: s/195 70 15/225 70 15/

There is 70 & 140 And 70 & 210 And 70 & 280 In fact 70 and any multiple of 70 will have as their greatest common factor 70. Similarly, 140 and any odd multiple of 70 will have the greatest common factor of 70 (eg 140 & 210, 140 & 350) There is not just one pair of numbers with the gcf of 70, but an infinite number of them - take any two relatively prime numbers; multiply them by 70 and the resulting numbers have a gcf of 70 (eg 4 & 9 are relatively prime, so the gcf of 280 (4 x 70) and 630 (9 x 70) is 70; 70 & 101 are relatively prime so 4900 (70 x 70) and 7070 (70 x 101) have a gcf of 70.)

No, they are not relatively prime.

No, they are not relatively prime.

No, they are not relatively prime.

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.

70 equals 70, and it is not prime.70 equals 70, and it is not prime.70 equals 70, and it is not prime.70 equals 70, and it is not prime.

Any two prime numbers will be relatively prime. Numbers are relatively prime if they do not have any prime factors in common. Prime numbers have only themselves as prime factors, so all prime numbers are relatively prime to the others.