No. It is not defined if the rational number happens to be 0.
It is irrational - unless the divisor is 0 in which case the division is not defined.
yes, it is irrational. An irrational number can defined as a number that can not be expressed as a finite nor a repeating decimal.
It is impossible to have a surd that is not irrational. Surds are defined to be an irrational number (square root of a number).
Any number with a defined end point, including 2.14, is a rational number.
Because irrational numbers are defined as real numbers which are not rational.
Because irrational numbers are defined as all real numbers which are not rational.
The set of real numbers is defined as the union of all rational and irrational numbers. Thus, the irrational numbers are a subset of the real numbers. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, every irrational number is a real number.
It is due to the fact that the set of real numbers is defined as the union of the rational and irrational numbers.
Yes irrational numbers are real numbers that are part of the number line,
Any number with a defined end-point, such as 6.3478, is, by definition, rational.
In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number which cannot be expressed as a fraction a/b, where a and b are integers, with b non-zero, and is therefore not a rational number