It can't be both at the same time. Irrational means "not rational".
12 is a rational number. Incidentally, there is no such time as 12 am or 12 pm: they are 12 noon and 12 midnight. Furthermore, if it was a time then it would not be a number (numbers do not have measurement units associated with them) and so it could not be rational.
No: Let r be some irrational number; as such it cannot be represented as s/t where s and t are both non-zero integers. Assume the square root of this irrational number r was rational. Then it can be represented in the form of p/q where p and q are both non-zero integers, ie √r = p/q As p is an integer, p² = p×p is also an integer, let y = p² And as q is an integer, q² = q×q is also an integer, let x = q² The number is the square of its square root, thus: (√r)² = (p/q)² = p²/q² = y/x but (√r)² = r, thus r = y/x and is a rational number. But r was chosen to be an irrational number, which is a contradiction (r cannot be both rational and irrational at the same time, so it cannot exist). Thus the square root of an irrational number cannot be rational. However, the square root of a rational number can be irrational, eg for the rational number ½ its square root (√½) is not rational.
No; the only condition for qualyfing as an irrational number is that the same pattern of digits doesn't repeat over and over again, as it does with a rational number. For example, 8/7 is a rational number; the decimal expansion is 1.142857 142857 142857 ... As you see, the same pattern of digits repeats over and over. The number may start with different digits, but if after a while the same pattern repeats again and again, the number is rational.The following number is irrational: 0.101001000100001000001 ... The pattern doesn't repeat, because a zero is added every time. And, in this example, the decimal expansion doesn't contain any digits other than 0 and 1.
' 9 ' can certainly be one ... or many ... of the digits in a written approximation of an irrational number. The number ' 9 ' itself is a perfectly rational number. If that doesn't answer your question, that's because I'm having a tough time understanding your question.
Integers and fractions that have integers in the numerator and denominator are rational. A number can't be rational and irrational at the same time - irrational means "not rational".
Numbers cannot be rational and irrational at the same time.
No number can be rational and irrational at the same time. 3.14 is the ratio of 314:100 and so is rational. HOWEVER, 3.14 is also a common approximation for pi, which is an irrational number. All irrational numbers have infinite, non-recurring decimals and so are often approximated by rationals.
It can't be both at the same time. Irrational means "not rational".
Yes. Any time you multiply a rational number by an irrational number, you get an irrational number - unless the rational number is zero.
Every time. No exceptions.
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!
None. A rational number is a number that can be written as the quotient of two integers where the divisor is not zero. An irrational number is a real number that cannot be written as the quotient of two integers where the divisor is not zero. Any given real number either can or cannot be written as the quotient of two integers. If it can, it is rational. If it cannot, it is irrational. You can't be both at the same time. The square root of -1 is not a real number and it cannot be written as the quotient of two integers, so it is neither rational nor irrational.
No they cant because that would be contradicting each other ( The numbers wont end and don't have a pattern but rational is the complete opposite)
12 is a rational number. Incidentally, there is no such time as 12 am or 12 pm: they are 12 noon and 12 midnight. Furthermore, if it was a time then it would not be a number (numbers do not have measurement units associated with them) and so it could not be rational.
No: Let r be some irrational number; as such it cannot be represented as s/t where s and t are both non-zero integers. Assume the square root of this irrational number r was rational. Then it can be represented in the form of p/q where p and q are both non-zero integers, ie √r = p/q As p is an integer, p² = p×p is also an integer, let y = p² And as q is an integer, q² = q×q is also an integer, let x = q² The number is the square of its square root, thus: (√r)² = (p/q)² = p²/q² = y/x but (√r)² = r, thus r = y/x and is a rational number. But r was chosen to be an irrational number, which is a contradiction (r cannot be both rational and irrational at the same time, so it cannot exist). Thus the square root of an irrational number cannot be rational. However, the square root of a rational number can be irrational, eg for the rational number ½ its square root (√½) is not rational.
The number 75.082106 with a repeating decimal is rational. A rational number can be expressed as a fraction of two integers, where the denominator is not zero. In this case, the repeating decimal can be written as a fraction, making it a rational number. Irrational numbers cannot be expressed as fractions and have non-repeating, non-terminating decimal expansions.