Assume = a/b with positive integers a und b. Now, for some natural number n define the functions f and F as follows. Strictly speaking, f and F should each have n as an index as they depend on n but this would render things unreadable; remember that n is always the same constant throughout this proof. Let f(x) = xn(a-bx)n/n! and let F(x) = f(x) + ... + (-1)jf(2j)(x) + ... + (-1)nf(2n)(x) where f(2j) denotes the 2j-th derivative of f. Then f and F have the following properties: f is a polynomial with coefficients that are integer, except for a factor of 1/n! f(x) = f(-x) 0
Let's start out with the basic inequality 4 < 5 < 9.
Now, we'll take the square root of this inequality:
2 < √5 < 3.
If you subtract all numbers by 2, you get:
0 < √5 - 2 < 1.
If √5 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 √5. Therefore, √6n must be an integer, and n must be the smallest multiple of √5 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 √5n by (√5 - 2). This gives 5n - 2√5n. Well, 5n is an integer, and, as we explained above, √5n is also an integer; therefore, 5n - 2√5n is an integer as well. We're going to rearrange this expression to (√5n - 2n)√5 and then set the term (√5n - 2n) equal to p, for simplicity. This gives us the expression √5p, which is equal to 5n - 2√5n, and is an integer.
Remember, from above, that 0 < √5 - 2 < 1.
If we multiply this inequality by n, we get 0 < √5n - 2n < n, or, from what we defined above, 0 < p < n. This means that p < n and thus √5p < √5n. We've already determined that both √5p and √5n are integers, but recall that we said n was the smallest multiple of √5 to yield an integer value. Thus, √5p < √5n is a contradiction; therefore √5 can't be rational and so must be irrational.
Q.E.D.
No.
Real numbers are composed of rational and irrational numbers. Integers are part of the group (set) of rational numbers. And the integers are composed of the counting numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and their negative counterparts (-1, -2, -3, ...). Oh, almost forgot. There is one more integer that is neither positive or negative. It's the number zero. Zero is an integer (neither positive or negative). The smallest real number ever is zero.
negative
A negative number divided by a negative number is positive. Therefore, it's the same as if both fractions were positive.
The same as the positive ones with negative signs.
If you have any positive irrational number, then its negative is also irrational.
A negative irrational number can be thought of as an irrational number multiplied by -1, or an irrational number with a minus sign in front of it.
If it says "negative irrational", then obviously it is irrational.
The negative of a rational number is also rational.
Not necessarily. Irrational numbers can be negative or positive.
no
No, they can be rational or irrational. The sign of a number has nothing to do with it.
The square root of 2 is 1.141..... is an irrational number
No.
-Pi is irrational, because it does not terminate or repeat. Whenever you multiply an irrational number by a rational number (-1), the result is an irrational number.
No. Irrational and rational numbers can be non-negative.
No.