Yes it is.
58 is an integer and not a fraction. However, it can be expressed in rational form as 58/1.
Is 5.8 an irrational number
5.8% = 5.8/100 = 58/1000 = 29/500
No, it is rational.
It is rational. It is rational. It is rational. It is rational.
58 is rational.
58 is an integer and not a fraction. However, it can be expressed in rational form as 58/1.
Is 5.8 an irrational number
If that is a terminating decimal: 0.58585858 = 58585858/100000000 = 29292929/50000000 And thus a rational number If it's a recurring decimal: 0.58585858... = 58/99 And thus a rational number
5.8% = 5.8/100 = 58/1000 = 29/500
0.58 is a fraction. It is a fraction in decimal form rather than in the form of a ratio. However, that does not stop it being a fraction. Its rational equivalent is 58/100 which can be simplified, if required.
It is indeed a rational number. Do you know the definition of a rational number? It is a number which can be exactly obtained by dividing one integer into another integer. -5.8 can be obtained exactly by dividing -58 by 10. It doesn't matter that -58 is a negative number. It is still a whole number, otherwise known as an integer. An example of an irrational number (not a rational number) is √2. This number can only be approximated (as 1.414… with as many decimal places as you desire); but it can not be exactly expressed as the ratio of two integers - as a rational number, that is. Another irrational number is π (pronounced 'pi'). It is approximately 3.14159 - but no number of decimal places will get it exactly; nor will the ratio of any two integers.
Rational
1.14 is rational.
4.6 is rational.
No, it is rational.
It is rational. It is rational. It is rational. It is rational.