It is easier to answer the opposite: an irrational number cannot be written as:
It can be written as an expression containing Irrational Numbers, such as 2*pi or 3*√2 or sin(37°) or log(3) or e2 or a combination of these or similar functions.
The short answer is "with great difficulty".
You cannot write an irrational number in decimal or fractional form. At least, you cannot write an exact value although you will be able to get a very close approximation. For example, pi has been calculated to over 10 trillion digits (Oct 2012) whereas 40 digits are enough to give a measure of the entire known universe to an accuracy of the width of a hydrogen atom!
Some irrationals can be expressed exactly - written in their radical form. For example, sqrt(2) or cuberoot(5) but expressions such as 1 + sqrt(3) cannot be simplified so it could be necessary to write out long expressions. The Golden ratio (phi) is one such number.
Even worse are irrationals that are transcendental. There is no way that mathematical constants such as pi or e can be written in a form described above.
There are infinite series for pi or e but obviously it is not possible to write out an infinite series. The main advantage is that, although the infinite sequence of decimal digits are more or less random, the infinite series can be defined in simple and elegant ways.
For example:
e = 1 + 1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! + 1/4! ... where n! represents 1*2*3*... *n
there are many series for pi.
One is
pi = 4*(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 + 1/7 ... )
Note though that elegant series may be very slow to reach their destination (slow to converge) whereas there may be "ugly" series that converge much more rapidly.
Not completely to its end. If you can completely write a number with digits, then it's a rational 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
The sum of a rational and irrational number must be an irrational number.
No, 3.56 is not an irrational number. 3.56 is rational.
No. If you write an irrational number as a decimal, it will have an infinite number of decimal digits that don't repeat periodically.
sqrt(2) + sqrt(3) is irrational.
Not completely to its end. If you can completely write a number with digits, then it's a rational number.
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.
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.
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
No. Quite simply an irrational number cannot be written as a fraction and you could write zero as a fraction ex. 0/1
5.39 is the ratio of 539 to 100 ... completely rational.Any number that you can completely write down with digits is rational.
its with numbers
No, 3.14 is not an irrational number.
No. If you can write the number on paper, it's rational. 68 is the ratio of 68 to 1.