0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Fran
Jordan
EzraAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Is the set of composite number closed under multiplication?
Is { 0, 20 } closed under multiplication
Is the set of irrational numbers closed under subtraction?
No; here's a counterexample to show that the set of irrational numbers is NOT closed under subtraction: pi - pi = 0. pi is an irrational number. If you subtract it from itself, you get zero, which is a rational number. Closure would require that the difference(answer) be an irrational number as well, which it isn't. Therefore the set of irrational numbers is NOT closed under subtraction.
Why the set of rationals does not form a group wrt multiplication?
All the elements in a group must be invertible with respect to the operation. The element 0, which belongs to the set does not have an inverse wrt multiplication.
Why are the rational numbers under the operation of multiplication not a group?
I believe it is because 0 does not have an inverse element.
If you multiply the numerator and the denominator of a fraction by the same number the result will be a fraction?
Yes, unless the number used for multiplication is 0. In that case you will have 0/0 which is not defined.
Is the set of composite number closed under multiplication?
Is { 0, 20 } closed under multiplication
Is 0 closed under multiplication?
anything times 0 is 0.
What operations is the set -1 0 1 closed to A Addition B Division C Multiplication D Subtraction?
Multiplication.
Which is the Smallest set of number which is closed under subtraction?
After the null set, the set containing only the number 0 ie {0}.
What are the properties of number?
Different sets of numbers have different properties. For example,The set of counting numbers is closed under addition but not under subtraction.The set of integers is closed under addition, subtraction and multiplication but not under division.Rational numbers are closed under all four basic operations of arithmetic, but not for square roots.A set S is "closed" with respect to operation # if whenever x and y are any two elements of S, then x#y is also in S. y = 0 is excluded for division.So, the answer depends on what you mean by "number".
Is the set of all 2x2 invertible matrices a subspace of all 2x2 matrices?
I assume since you're asking if 2x2 invertible matrices are a "subspace" that you are considering the set of all 2x2 matrices as a vector space (which it certainly is). In order for the set of 2x2 invertible matrices to be a subspace of the set of all 2x2 matrices, it must be closed under addition and scalar multiplication. A 2x2 matrix is invertible if and only if its determinant is nonzero. When multiplied by a scalar (let's call it c), the determinant of a 2x2 matrix will be multiplied by c^2 since the determinant is linear in each row (two rows -> two factors of c). If the determinant was nonzero to begin with c^2 times the determinant will be nonzero, so an invertible matrix multiplied by a scalar will remain invertible. Therefore the set of all 2x2 invertible matrices is closed under scalar multiplication. However, this set is not closed under addition. Consider the matrices {[1 0], [0 1]} and {[-1 0], [0 -1]}. Both are invertible (in this case, they are both their own inverses). However, their sum is {[0 0], [0 0]}, which is not invertible because its determinant is 0. In conclusion, the set of invertible 2x2 matrices is not a subspace of the set of all 2x2 matrices because it is not closed under addition.
Do 0 and 3 have closure for addition?
A set of numbers is considered to be closed if and only if you take any 2 numbers and perform an operation on them, the answer will belong to the same set as the original numbers, than the set is closed under that operation. If you add any 2 real numbers, your answer will be a real number, so the real number set is closed under addition. If you divide any 2 whole numbers, your answer could be a repeating decimal, which is not a whole number, and is therefore not closed. As for 0 and 3, the most specific set they belong to is the whole numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...) If you add 0 and 3, your answer is 3, which is also a whole number. Therefore, yes 0 and 3 are closed under addition
Is The set 0 1 and multiplication closed?
Since that's a fairly small set, you should be able to check all combinations (for 2 numbers, there are only 4 possible multiplications), and see whether the result is in the set.
What conditions need to be checked to verify that something is a field in math?
It must be a set It must have two operations (usually called addition and multiplication) Additive and multiplicative identities must exist The inverses of these operations must exist for all elements of the set (except for 0 (additive identity) with multiplication) The set must be closed under these operations Both operations must be commutative, associative, and distributive with one another.
Is the set 0 1 closed under extraction of square root?
No. The square roots of 0.25 are 0.5 AND -0.5, the second of which does not belong to the set.
Why is division not closed for rational numbers give an example?
If a set is closed under an operation. then the answer will be a part of that set. If you add, subtract or multiply any two rational numbers you get another national number. But when it comes to division, it is closed except for one number and that is ZERO. eg 3.56 (rational number) ÷ 0 = no answer. Since no answer is not a rational number, that rational numbers are not closed under the operation of division.
Is the set of irrational numbers closed under subtraction?
No; here's a counterexample to show that the set of irrational numbers is NOT closed under subtraction: pi - pi = 0. pi is an irrational number. If you subtract it from itself, you get zero, which is a rational number. Closure would require that the difference(answer) be an irrational number as well, which it isn't. Therefore the set of irrational numbers is NOT closed under subtraction.
