There are infinitely many rational numbers between any two rational rational numbers (no matter how close).
Natural (counting) numbers; integers; rational numbers; real numbers; complex numbers. And any other set that you choose to define, that happens to include the number 7 - for example, the set of odd numbers, the set of prime numbers, the set of the numbers {5, 7, 14, 48}, etc.
It is a rational number.
booty
define or describe each set of real numbers?
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational. The fact that it is negative does not matter.
Rational numbers are numbers that can be written as a fraction. Irrational numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction.
Z=Integers; Rational numbers={a/b| a,b∈Z, b ≠ 0}.
yes, every whole number is rational since it can be written as a ratio. For example, the number 3 is really 3/1 which is a rational number. We define rational numbers as those numbers that we are able to write as ratios. However, most rational numbers are not whole numbersYes
A liquid has a define shape but a gas has no define shape
Quite simply, a number that is not a rational number. And a rational number is one that can be written as a fraction, with integer numerator and denominator.
Answer: NO Explanation: Let's look at an example to see how this works. A is all rational numbers less than 5. So one element of A might be 1 since that is less than 5 or 1/2, or -1/2, or even 0. Now if we pick 1/2 or 0, clearly that numbers that are greater than them in the set. So what we are really asking, is there a largest rational number less than 5. In a set A, we define the define the supremum to be the smallest real number that is greater than or equal to every number in A. So do rationals have a supremum? That is really the heart of the question. Now that you understand that, let's state an important finding in math: If an ordered set A has the property that every nonempty subset of A having an upper bound also has a least upper bound, then A is said to have the least-upper-bound property In this case if we pick any number very close to 5, we can find another number even closer because the rational numbers are dense in the real numbers. So the conclusion is that the rational number DO NOT have the least upper bound property. This means there is no number q that fulfills your criteria.
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational.
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational.
It is possible if you define some arbitrary sequence, to decide which number comes "after" which other number. There is no "natural" sequence, as in the case of integers; to be more precise, you can't use the ordering defined by the "less-than" operator as such a sequence: between any two different rational numbers, there are additional rational numbers.
The answer is rational when you divide one whole number by another one.
Natural (counting) numbers; integers; rational numbers; real numbers; complex numbers. And any other set that you choose to define, that happens to include the number 7 - for example, the set of odd numbers, the set of prime numbers, the set of the numbers {5, 7, 14, 48}, etc.
A rational number is any number that can be expressed as the quotient a/b of two integers, with the denominator b not equal to zero. Here are a few examples: 1/2, 10000/2, 3/1(3), .00000000000000000000001