0.5555 is rational. If, however, you meant 0.5555..., meaning the 5's repeat forever, then it is irrational.
No: there is no such word as inational. And if you meant irrational, the answer is still no. They are not.
A rational number can be expressed as a fraction whereas an irrational number can't.
The answer to the question is 0 since there are infinitely many positive irrational numbers between 1 and 10.Assuming you meant positive integers, the answer is 4/8 = 1/2.The answer to the question is 0 since there are infinitely many positive irrational numbers between 1 and 10.Assuming you meant positive integers, the answer is 4/8 = 1/2.The answer to the question is 0 since there are infinitely many positive irrational numbers between 1 and 10.Assuming you meant positive integers, the answer is 4/8 = 1/2.The answer to the question is 0 since there are infinitely many positive irrational numbers between 1 and 10.Assuming you meant positive integers, the answer is 4/8 = 1/2.
No such word as "errational". If you meant "irrational" then a synonym would be 'unhinged', 'mad', 'loopy', 'impulsive', 'unreasonable', 'unsound'.
Irrational. Irrational. Irrational. Irrational.
It is irrational.
Rational
Such a sum is always irrational.
A rational number is any number that does not have an infinite number of digits. So, as you wrote it, 2.8333333 is a rational number. However, if you meant the 3s to go on forever (as in the number 2.8 + 1/30), that would be an irrational number.
If it says "negative irrational", then obviously it is irrational.
No