This is not possible, because any number squared would be positive, not negative.
No. All whole numbers are integers.
Logs are defined only for positive numbers so the log of a negative number does not exist.
Of course it is. 'a' can be any positive or negative number, and 'b' is its square.That's no problem.What is difficult is for 'b' to be a negative number in the same equation.No real number for 'a' can produce a negative 'b'.
It is rational because it can be expressed as the ratio 400040004/10000000000.
Let x and y be two rational numbers. If both x and y are negative then their sum will be negative.If only one of them, say x, is positive (so that y is negative), and if the absolute value (or magnitude) of y is greater than x then their sum will be negative.
Of course it is! If the mean of a set of data is negative, then the coefficient of variation will be negative.
This is not possible, because any number squared would be positive, not negative.
No. All whole numbers are integers.
Logs are defined only for positive numbers so the log of a negative number does not exist.
Of course it is. 'a' can be any positive or negative number, and 'b' is its square.That's no problem.What is difficult is for 'b' to be a negative number in the same equation.No real number for 'a' can produce a negative 'b'.
No, 1/2 is rational, but not a whole number.
It is rational because it can be expressed as the ratio 400040004/10000000000.
It must be a generalised rational number. Otherwise, if you select a rational number to multiply, then you will only prove it for that number.
Positive plus positive equals positive. Negative plus negative equals negative. Positive greater than negative equals positive. Negative greater than positive equals negative.
It can be written in the form of the ratio 55555/100000.
A rational number is, by definition, the answer from dividing one integer by another.