Thee basic concept is that an rational function is one polynomial divided by another polynomial. The coefficients of these polynomials need not be rational numbers.
bob black
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.
private companies managed resources
It would be a false concept since e is not rational.
Thee basic concept is that an rational function is one polynomial divided by another polynomial. The coefficients of these polynomials need not be rational numbers.
No, by the very definition of rational it can be a fraction with only integers. Common sense would suggest that since irrational means not rational that is impossible.
bob black
It doesn't
Forests should be preserved for public use.
Forests should be preserved for public use.
Development equates progression and it is uncontested in my view. Nothing in life is regresive, so for. the argument of contesting the concept defeats the rational of chronological time and it is ill based.
It represents the ratio between the numerator and the denominator. It is totally misleading to suggest that it represent anything like "parts of a whole". The ratio of the surface area of a sphere to its volume is 3/r. In this expression 3 parts out of the "total" radius is not a particularly meaningful or useful concept.
Forests should be preserved for public use.
If you want to ask questions about the "above", then I suggest that you make sure that there is something that is above.