answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Suppose A = 2 + sqrt(3)

and

B = 5 - sqrt(3)

Then A and B are two Irrational Numbers but

A + B = 2 + sqrt(3) + 5 - sqrt(3) = 7 which is rational.

User Avatar

Wiki User

โˆ™ 2013-08-29 11:24:21
This answer is:
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
User Avatar
Study guides

Algebra

20 cards

A polynomial of degree zero is a constant term

The grouping method of factoring can still be used when only some of the terms share a common factor A True B False

The sum or difference of p and q is the of the x-term in the trinomial

A number a power of a variable or a product of the two is a monomial while a polynomial is the of monomials

โžก๏ธ
See all cards

J's study guide

2 cards

What is the name of Steve on minecraft's name

What is love

โžก๏ธ
See all cards

Steel Tip Darts Out Chart

96 cards

170

169

168

167

โžก๏ธ
See all cards

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Give one example for if you add two irrational number and answer should get in rational number?
Write your answer...
Submit
Related questions

Why should a real number be rational or irrational?

Because irrational numbers are defined as real numbers which are not rational.


Why does a rational number plus an irrational number equal an irrational number?

from another wikianswers page: say that 'a' is rational, and that 'b' is irrational. assume that a + b equals a rational number, called c. so a + b = c subtract a from both sides. you get b = c - a. but c - a is a rational number subtracted from a rational number, which should equal another rational number. However, b is an irrational number in our equation, so our assumption that a + b equals a rational number must be wrong.


Is 3.1415 a rational or irrational number?

3.1415 is rational (as are all other terminating decimals). Note that these are some of the first few digits of pi (3.14159…, which really should be rounded to 3.1416 not 5); pi is an irrational number. Approximations of pi are generally rational numbers.


What is the sum or difference of the any two irrational numbers?

The sum or the difference between two irrational numbers could either be rational or irrational, however, it should be a real number.


Why is pi an irrational number It is Circumference divided by diameter so it should be rational?

It is irrational because its decimal places go on forever. They don't a) end b) have a pattern or c) are the same number repeated What I was asking was pi is C/d. Circumference is a number and so is diameter. p/q=rational. Then why is pi irrational?


Is it ok to tell someone that they are not being rational?

Yes, but unless you are able to fully explain how they are being irrational it is unlikely they will listen to you, and in that case you should not tell them they are being irrational.


Why is the square root of 7 not a rational number?

A rational number is a number that can be written in the form a/b with a and b relatively prime integers - a and b are whole numbers with no common factors (eg if a=3 then b can't be 3,6,9,12,etc). Rational numbers have decimal representations that either terminate (like 3/4=0.75) or are infinitely recurring (like 1/9=0.1111111111... or 5/7=0.714285|714285|714285...). Irrational numbers (numbers that aren't rational) have infinite decimals that never repeat (like pi=3.1415926535..., e=2.7182818284590...). It is possible to prove that unless n is a square number, the square root of n is irrational - if n can't be written as m^2 then n^0.5 is irrational. Since you can't find a and b such that (a/b)^2=7 the square root of 7 is irrational. It should be noted that you can get as close as you like to 7^0.5 with rational numbers but you can never reach it exactly.


Is the square root of 7 a rational number?

A rational number is a number that can be written in the form a/b with a and b relatively prime integers - a and b are whole numbers with no common factors (eg if a=3 then b can't be 3,6,9,12,etc). Rational numbers have decimal representations that either terminate (like 3/4=0.75) or are infinitely recurring (like 1/9=0.1111111111... or 5/7=0.714285|714285|714285...). Irrational numbers (numbers that aren't rational) have infinite decimals that never repeat (like pi=3.1415926535..., e=2.7182818284590...). It is possible to prove that unless n is a square number, the square root of n is irrational - if n can't be written as m^2 then n^0.5 is irrational. Since you can't find a and b such that (a/b)^2=7 the square root of 7 is irrational. It should be noted that you can get as close as you like to 7^0.5 with rational numbers but you can never reach it exactly. See related question.


Should the quotient of an integer divided by a non zero integer always be a rational number?

Yes, that is how a rational number is defined.


Give an example of a square root that is not a rational number?

The square root of 2 is irrational because it cannot be expressed as a fraction in which the numerator and denominator are both integers.Another way of saying this is that the square root of 2 will have infinite decimal places in any a number system of any radix (base 10, base 2, base 3, base 16, etc)This should not be confused with imaginary numbers. Rational and Irrational numbers together combine to make the Real numbers, imaginary numbers are, however, not Real. Imaginary numbers are those that can be expressed as a Real number multiplied by the square root of negative 1 (also known as i or j)So, strictly speaking, both sqrt(2) and sqrt(-1) are "not rational numbers", however, they are not both "irrational" numbers.


Are irrational numbers real number?

A mathematical approach:Yes they are. Irrational Numbers are very real, for example - the square root of two - which is irrational (but can be plotted in a number line without difficulty with a compass and straight edge). All numbers you can think of (even if you cant white them out) are real numbers.They are real, but they can't be expressed as fractions.A philosophical approach:According to ME, there should be a limit. If there is a number which is not ending, we can't say that it is a number because it has not ended yet, its not a complete number. That's why, any number which is not ending is not a number, so irrational numbers and some rational numbers are not numbers and we can't plot them on real line, no matter how much depth we are into it. If there is a number 1.0000... (100 million 0's) ...1, we can plot it by dividing real line into required many parts but we cant plot a number like 1.1111....1111....(up to, we don't know), actually that's not a number yet.Maths should be changed.


Are irrational numbers real numbers?

A mathematical approach:Yes they are. Irrational numbers are very real, for example - the square root of two - which is irrational (but can be plotted in a number line without difficulty with a compass and straight edge). All numbers you can think of (even if you cant white them out) are real numbers.They are real, but they can't be expressed as fractions.A philosophical approach:According to ME, there should be a limit. If there is a number which is not ending, we can't say that it is a number because it has not ended yet, its not a complete number. That's why, any number which is not ending is not a number, so irrational numbers and some rational numbers are not numbers and we can't plot them on real line, no matter how much depth we are into it. If there is a number 1.0000... (100 million 0's) ...1, we can plot it by dividing real line into required many parts but we cant plot a number like 1.1111....1111....(up to, we don't know), actually that's not a number yet.Maths should be changed.


Is 3.567 rational?

Definition of rational number is that they should be in the form of P/q where q is not equal to zero . 3.567 can be represented in form of p /q as 3567/1000. Hence, we can 3.567 are rational number.


What is the best approximation for the square root of 72?

The square root of 72 is an irrational number and there is no such thing as a best approximation for any irrational number. By definition, all irrational numbers are represented by infinitely long decimal strings and it is always possible to improve the approximation by calculating the value to one more decimal place. 8.48528 should be sufficiently accurate for most purposes.


Is the square root of 12 rational?

No, it is not. Root 12 = root 4 * root 3, which is the same as 2*root 3. And you should already know than root 3 is irrational.


If The number pi goes on forever with no repeating pattern therefore it is irrational?

Yes - it meets the conditions for a an irrational number:It is a Real numberWhen written as a decimal it never terminatesWhen written as a decimal it never repeatsThe exact definition of an irrational number is bit more precise, but this should be good enough for most purposes.


A rational number is a number that can be written as a .?

If the decimal expansion of a number either repeats or terminates, it's rational. I'm not quite sure how to mangle that statement to make it fit into your sentence, but you should do at least SOME of your homework yourself anyway.


Why the denominator of rational number should not be equal to zero?

To divide any number by zero will give infinity and therefore an error.


Why the dinominator of rational number should not be zero?

The denominator of any number cannot be zero because division by zero is not defined.


What is schematic diagram of real numbers and its subset?

It is not possible, on Answers.com to give a schematic diagram. However, the following should provide the necessary information.Real Numbers (R): can be divided into Rational numbers and Irrational numbers. Rational numbers are those that can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, the second of which is not zero. An irrational number is a real number that cannot be so expressed.Irrational Numbers: Some irrational numbers are transcendental numbers. These are numbers that are not algebraic. That is, they are not roots of any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. Most notable transcendental numbers are pi and e, but so are the values of the trigonometric ratios for most angles. A list of numbers proven to be transcendental and suspected of being so is given in a link. The rest are "ordinary" or algebraic irrational numbers.Rational Numbers (Q): Rational numbers can be divided into integers and other rationals. The "other" are rational numbers whose fractional part is non-zero.Integers (Z): The main subsets of integers are the counting numbers and the rest. Mathematicians are not agreed on te definition of these two subsets: specifically, there is a question about the status of 0. Some consider 0 to be a counting number, others don't. Symbolically, it is probably best to use Z+ for the set of positive integers excluding 0, and Z0 for positive integers including 0 (or the set of non-negative integers). There are also the complimentary sets - of negative integers including 0, and not including 0.


Should the quotient of an integer divided by nonzero integer always be a rational number?

Yes, by definition.


Is 0.1234 a rational number?

Yes.


Is 1.5555..... a rational number?

numbers never stop so any number should be real


Should the quotient of an integer divided by a nonzero integer always be a rational number?

I had this name question for homework :| no


1.75 a rational numberis?

A rational number is any number which can be expressed in the form a/b, where a and b are both integers. In other words, rational numbers are those which can be written as whole number fractions. 1.75 is rational because it can be expressed by the improper fraction 7/4. It may be worth noting also that any number whose exact decimal representation has a finite number of digits is rational. For instance, the fractional representation of 0.13 might not be immediately obvious, but it can be written simply as 13/100. Likewise, even if you don't recognize 1.75 as 7/4, it should be easy to see that it is equal to 175/100.