Best Answer

Irrational Numbers can be represented on a number line. For example, to graph the square root of two, draw a line of 1 unit (1 unit = the distance between the points of two whole numbers) from -1 which is perpendicular to the number line. Then, using a compass, place the pointy end on 0, the pencil tip on the end of the drawn line that is not touching the number line and drawing an arc so that it hits the number line on the positive side. Draw a point at where the arc meets the number line. That point is the square root of 2.

This works because of Pythagoras theorem (a2+b2=c2, 12+12=22).

Q: Are irrational numbers cannot be represented on a number line?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Continue Learning about Basic Math

An irrational number is a number that can't be exactly represented as the ratio of two integers.

Rational numbers are numbers that can be written as a fraction. Irrational numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction.

Rational numbers are numbers that can be written as a fraction. Irrational numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction.

Rational numbers are numbers that can be written as a fraction. Irrational Numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction. Any number that is a fraction is not an integer, but rational.

Irrational numbers have infinitely long, non-repeating decimal expansions. They cannot be natural numbers or whole numbers. Those are rational.

Related questions

No. Irrational numbers are those that cannot be represented as a fractions. Any number which repeats could be represented as a fraction.

Rational numbers can be represented in the form x/y but irrational numbers cannot.

These number can also be represented on real line.

No, -5 is not an irrational number. Irrational numbers are numbers that cannot be represented as the quotient of two integers. Since -5 is already an integer, it is rational.

Irrational numbers are precisely those real numbers that cannot be represented as terminating or repeating decimals. Log 216 = 2.334453751 terminates and is therefore not irrational.

There are no irrational numbers in the value -5.72. All of the components of the value are represented by rational numbers. An irrational number is any number that cannot be represented by a fraction a/b where a and b are integers. -5.72 itself is rational as it can be represented by -572 / 100. The digits of the value are also rational as they can be represented as -5/1, 7/1 and 2/1, respectively.

No - the sets of rational and irrational numbers have no intersection. A rational number is any Real number that CAN be represented as a ratio of two integers where the denominator is not zero. An Irrational number is any Real number the CANNOT be represented as a ration of two integers.

An irrational number is a number that cannot be represented as a fraction involving two integers. A transcendental number is a number that cannot be repesented as a polynomial with rational coefficients. Two notable transcendental numbers are pi and e.

In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers. Irrational numbers cannot be represented as terminating or repeating decimals.The square root of 31 is one such.

Irrational numbers are real numbers.

No integer is an irrational number. An irrational number is a number that cannot be represented as an integer or a fraction.All integers which are whole numbers are rational numbers.

an irrational number is any real number that cannot be expressed as a ratio a/b, where a and bare integers, with b nonzero, and is therefore not a rational number.Informally, this means that an irrational number cannot be represented as a simple fraction. Irrational numbers are those real numbers that cannot be represented as terminating or repeating decimals. As a consequence of Cantor's proof that the real numbers are uncountable (and the rationals countable) it follows that almost all real numbers are irrational.[1]When the ratio of lengths of two line segments is irrational, the line segments are also described as being incommensurable By Paul Philip S. Panis