Technically, no. A rational number can be defined as a fraction, and that is 1333/1000. However, 1.333....., as you might mean, is an irrational number because there are infinite decimals, so it cannot be written as a fraction.
The rational numbers are a subset of the real numbers. You might recall that rational numbers are those that can be expressed as the ratio of two whole numbers (no matter how large they are). Irrational numbers, like pi, cannot. But both sets (the rational and irrational numbers) are subsets of the real numbers. In fact, when we look at all the numbers, we are looking at the complex number system. We break that down into the real and the imaginary numbers. And the real numbers have the rational and irrational numbers as subsets. It's just that simple.
That might be VII, the Roman numeral for 7.
If you mean "each of its factors", then you might say "by definition". If a number is a factor of another number, then that means that the other number is a multiple.
It used to be 1213 back in the day, but it might have changed....
If you want to use a rational number for a mathematical operation, it will be necessary to estimate it for a numerical outcome. Irrational numbers can't be written out exactly.
Technically, no. A rational number can be defined as a fraction, and that is 1333/1000. However, 1.333....., as you might mean, is an irrational number because there are infinite decimals, so it cannot be written as a fraction.
Find the difference between the two numbers, then add an irrational number between zero and one, divided by this difference, to the lower number. Such an irrational number might be pi/10, (square root of 2) / 2, etc.
Neither. Pie is something that you might eat. pi, on the other hand, is a letter of the Greek alphabet that is used to represent a mathematical constant which is an irrational number.
It is a rational number because it can be expressed as an improper fraction in the form of -80/1
As posted, no, 0.7142857 is not an "irrational number". It might be fairly complicated to reduce, but it can be expressed rationally - that is, as the ratio or fraction between two other numbers.. Irrational numbers are numbers that cannot be expressed as a fraction. For example, the number "pi", which is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, cannot be expressed as a fraction of any other numbers.
What might you encounter in a construction zone giving instructions?
A whole number k can be written in the form k/1 where k and 1 are both integers. It can, thus, be expressed in the form of a ratio and so is rational. Since it is rational it cannot be irrational. Simple!
If a number is real but it is not rational then it is irrational. So the question can be converted to how to find out if a number is rational.If the number can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, then it is rational and if not, it is not.There is a decimal equivalent to this rule but it is harder to apply. If a number can be expressed as a terminating decimal or one in which a finite string of numbers repeats itself endlessly, the number is rational. The difficulty lies with determining when the repeating string will start. Euler's number, e, is irrational but is starts of with 2.718281828 so, if you stopped there you might think that it had gone into a recurring sequence of 1828. It has not. The next few digits are 4590. On the other hand a rational number such as 1/n might not start repeating until the nth digit.
dk
hello
It might seems like it, but actually no. Proof: sqrt(0) = 0 (0 is an integer, not a irrational number) sqrt(1) = 1 (1 is an integer, not irrational) sqrt(2) = irrational sqrt(3) = irrational sqrt(4) = 2 (integer) As you can see, there are more than 1 square root of a positive integer that yields an integer, not a irrational. While most of the sqrts give irrational numbers as answers, perfect squares will always give you an integer result. Note: 0 is not a positive integer. 0 is neither positive nor negative.