No, it is rational.
It is rational. It is rational. It is rational. It is rational.
"Rational" is an adjective and so there cannot be "a rational" (and certainly not "an rational"). Any answer would depend on whether the question was about a rational number, a rational person, a rational argument or "a rational" combined with some other noun.
12.2882057274 is rational, but it is a rational approximation of an irrational number.Any number that can be expressed exactly as a fraction is rational, and that includes any number that, when written in decimal form, uses a finite number of digits.However, √151 (the square root of 151), which is approximately 12.2882057274445..., is an irrational number. You could keep getting a closer and closer approximation with more and more digits, but you would never hit it exactly, and you will never end up with a repeating series of digits.0.80428571428571428571428571... is also a rational number, because, after the 0.80 at the beginning, you have a repeating sequence of 428571. It's a decimal representation of 563/700.
700 is the smallest number 700 will divide evenly into.700 divided by 4 is 175, so 700 is the LCM of 4 and 700.
No. If the decimal expansion falls into a repeating pattern (however long) then the number is rational. For example, 0.33... is the rational number 1/3. or 0.04142857142857... where the pattern 142857 continues forever is the rational number 29/700.
Rational
1.14 is rational.
The number -3 is a rational number. A rational number is any number that can be expressed as a fraction where the numerator and denominator are integers and the denominator is not zero. In this case, -3 can be expressed as the fraction -3/1. Since -3 can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, it is considered a rational number.
4.6 is rational.
No, it is rational.
It is a rational number
It is rational. It is rational. It is rational. It is rational.
Rational.
No, it is rational.
It is rational
0.38 is a rational number because it can be expressed as a fraction