A rational number cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers, the second of which is positive.
The fact that you can't express it as a fraction (with integer numerator and denominator).
yes because there is a repeatind decimal like, - 2.24224222422224222224 so that makes -0.0600600060000 rational
No. It can be written as a fraction where the denominator is not 0. For example, 314/100. This makes it rational.
If it has whole numbers on top and bottom, or could be written that way, then it's rational. Positive or negative makes no difference.
the number 1.2 is a real and rational number
-- If the numerator and denominator of the fraction are both whole numbers,then the fraction is definitely a rational number.-- Even if they're not both whole numbers, it still canbe a rational number.-- Makes no difference whether the fraction is negative or positive, improper or proper.
An irrational number.
An irrational number is a number that has no definite end. 4.5 has a definite end. THis makes it a rational number.
88 is the ratio of 88 and 1. That makes it rational.
No. Pie is potentially never ending. This makes it an irrational number.
45 is an integer which is a rational number. So the question makes no sense.
Since 1.875 is rational and not irrational, the question makes no sense.
A rational number is a number that has a definite end. For example, pi is never ending and is therefore an irrational number. -4, however, has a definite end. This makes it a rational number.
Yes.2 and 0.5 are both rational. But 2^0.5, which is sqrt(2), is irrational.
-23 is rational.It is rational because we can write it as a fraction (one integer divided by another) where the denominator is not equal to 0. For example, -23/1. This makes it rational.
Both are rational, so the question makes no sense.
yes because there is a repeatind decimal like, - 2.24224222422224222224 so that makes -0.0600600060000 rational
yes because there is a repeatind decimal like, - 2.24224222422224222224 so that makes -0.0600600060000 rational