Best Answer

There is no representation for Irrational Numbers: they are represented as real numbers that are not rational. The set of real numbers is R and set of rational numbers is Q so that the set of irrational numbers is the complement if Q in R.

Q: How do you write an irrational number in algebra?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Continue Learning about Algebra

PI is a number that is commonly used to help understand circles in algebra. We all know how it starts out. 3.14.... It is a real and irrational number. Pi is not only irrational. It's much worse. It is trancendental, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with intefer coefficients. Trancendental numbers are important in algebra, but Pi is studied more in Analysis and Calculus

Not completely to its end. If you can completely write a number with digits, then it's a rational number.

The square root of a positive integer can ONLY be:* Either an integer, * Or an irrational number. (The proof of this is basically the same as the proof, in high school algebra books, that the square root of 2 is irrational.) Since in this case 32 is not the square of an integer, it therefore follows that its square root is an irrational number.

5.39 is the ratio of 539 to 100 ... completely rational.Any number that you can completely write down with digits is rational.

yes it is an irrational numberNo because 18 is a rational number

Related questions

No. If you write an irrational number as a decimal, it will have an infinite number of decimal digits that don't repeat periodically.

Irrational numbers

PI is a number that is commonly used to help understand circles in algebra. We all know how it starts out. 3.14.... It is a real and irrational number. Pi is not only irrational. It's much worse. It is trancendental, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with intefer coefficients. Trancendental numbers are important in algebra, but Pi is studied more in Analysis and Calculus

sqrt(2) + sqrt(3) is irrational.

Any irrational number can be approximated by decimals. You can never write it exactly, since there are an infinite number of decimals, and these don't repeat.

Not completely to its end. If you can completely write a number with digits, then it's a rational number.

Being rational or irrational is not about "predicting the next digit"; the definition of a rational number is that you can write it as a fraction, with integer numerator and denominator.Being rational or irrational is not about "predicting the next digit"; the definition of a rational number is that you can write it as a fraction, with integer numerator and denominator.Being rational or irrational is not about "predicting the next digit"; the definition of a rational number is that you can write it as a fraction, with integer numerator and denominator.Being rational or irrational is not about "predicting the next digit"; the definition of a rational number is that you can write it as a fraction, with integer numerator and denominator.

The square root of a positive integer can ONLY be:* Either an integer, * Or an irrational number. (The proof of this is basically the same as the proof, in high school algebra books, that the square root of 2 is irrational.) Since in this case 32 is not the square of an integer, it therefore follows that its square root is an irrational number.

NO it is not irrational, that is to say it IS rational. If you can write a number as ratio of integers, it is rational. -11.7 can certainly be written as a ratio of integers.

Rational

Yes. The square root of a positive integer can ONLY be either:* An integer (in this case, it isn't), OR * An irrational number. The proof is basically the same as the proof used in high school algebra, to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational.

No. Quite simply an irrational number cannot be written as a fraction and you could write zero as a fraction ex. 0/1