Chat with our AI personalities
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.
Yes. The proof is easy. Let x be the irrational number and assume there exists some rational number r = a/b where a and b are integers (that's what it means to be rational). Now suppose x/r is a rational number. Then x/r = (b/a)x = c/d where c and d are some other integers. Since (b/a)x=c/d, then x = bd/ac which means that x itself is rational, but we assumed it was irrational. The contradiction proves that the assertion is wrong. An irrational divided by a rational must be irrational.
The set of irrational numbers is NOT denoted by Q.Q denotes the set of rational numbers. The set of irrational numbers is not denoted by any particular letter but by R - Q where R is the set of real numbers.
There is no specific sign. The set of irrationals can be written as R - Q.
The radius, r, is 4.8 feet. The circumference is 2*pi*r where pi is the irrational number approximated by 3.14159