Yes, here's the proof.
Let's start out with the basic inequality 81 < 87 < 100.
Now, we'll take the square root of this inequality:
9 < √87 < 10.
If you subtract all numbers by 9, you get:
0 < √87 - 9 < 1.
If √87 is rational, then it can be expressed as a fraction of two integers, m/n. This next part is the only remotely tricky part of this proof, so pay attention. We're going to assume that m/n is in its most reduced form; i.e., that the value for n is the smallest it can be and still be able to represent √87. Therefore, √87n must be an integer, and n must be the smallest multiple of √87 to make this true. If you don't understand this part, read it again, because this is the heart of the proof.
Now, we're going to multiply √87n by (√87 - 9). This gives 87n - 9√87n. Well, 87n is an integer, and, as we explained above, √87n is also an integer, so 9√87n is an integer too; therefore, 87n - 9√87n is an integer as well. We're going to rearrange this expression to (√87n - 9n)√87 and then set the term (√87n - 9n) equal to p, for simplicity. This gives us the expression √87p, which is equal to 87n - 9√87n, and is an integer.
Remember, from above, that 0 < √87 - 9 < 1.
If we multiply this inequality by n, we get 0 < √87n - 9n < n, or, from what we defined above, 0 < p < n. This means that p < n and thus √87p < √87n. We've already determined that both √87p and √87n are integers, but recall that we said n was the smallest multiple of √87 to yield an integer value. Thus, √87p < √87n is a contradiction; therefore √87 can't be rational and so must be irrational.
Q.E.D.
The question asks if 87 is rational, not √87. 87 is rational because it can be expressed as the ratio of two integers i.e. 87 = 87/1.
They Are Both Real Numbers.
Rational-Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT).
They are called conjugates.
They are dense in that between any two decimals you have another one. A much better way to think of it is that a decimal must be either rational or irrational. For example, .34 is certainly rational, but the decimal expansion of square root of 2 goes on forever and is irrational. So a decimal, being either one, must be dense in the reals.
Yes, the number 3 is a real number. Real numbers include all rational and irrational numbers, and since 3 can be expressed as a fraction (3/1), it falls within this category. Therefore, 3 is indeed a real number.
rational
4.6 is rational.
Rational
34.5 is RATIONAL. Irrational numbers are those were the decimals go to infinity AND there is no regular order in the decimal numbers. Definitively an Irrational Number CAnnot BE CONVERTED TO A quotient/ratio/frACTION pi = 3.141592.... is the most well known irrational number. So 34.5 is rational 34.55555..... is rational (gOES TO INFINITY ; numbers in regukar order). 34.565656.... is Rational (Goes to infinity ; numbers in regulkar order). et seq., The dots after the number mean it continues to infinity . However, 34.25865414..... is Irrational . Because there is no regular order in the decimal digits.
Rational.
If x is rational the it is rational. If x is irrational then it is irrational.
No. A rational plus an irrational is always an irrational.
They can be rational, irrational or complex numbers.They can be rational, irrational or complex numbers.They can be rational, irrational or complex numbers.They can be rational, irrational or complex numbers.
Can be irrational or rational.1 [rational] * sqrt(2) [irrational] = sqrt(2) [irrational]0 [rational] * sqrt(2) [irrational] = 0 [rational]
1.14 is rational.
Rational
rational