answersLogoWhite

0

I'm assuming that you mean 'square root'. Yes, this sum is irrational. So are each of the two numbers alone. A simple proof can be done by writing x=square root 2 + square root 3 and then "squareing away" the square roots and then use the rational roots theorem. The sum or difference of two irrational number need not be irrational! Look at sqrt(2)- sqrt(2)=0 which is rational.

User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

FranFran
I've made my fair share of mistakes, and if I can help you avoid a few, I'd sure like to try.
Chat with Fran
EzraEzra
Faith is not about having all the answers, but learning to ask the right questions.
Chat with Ezra
ViviVivi
Your ride-or-die bestie who's seen you through every high and low.
Chat with Vivi
More answers

The square root of 30 is irrational. The proof that the square root of 2 is irrational may be used, with only slight modification.

Assume the square root of 30 is rational. Then, it may be written as a/b, where a and b are integers with no common factors. (This is possible for all nonzero rational numbers). Since a/b is the square root of 30, its square must equal 30. That is,

(a/b)2 = 30

a2/b2 = 30

a2 = 30b2.

The right side is even, so the left side must be even also, that is, a2 is even. Since a2 is even, a is also even (because the square of an odd number is always odd). Since a is even, there exists an integer c such that a = 2c. Now,

(2c)2 = 30b2

4c2 = 30b2

2c2 = 15b2.

The left side is now even, so the right side must be even too. The product of two odd numbers is always odd, so b2 cannot be odd; it must be even. Therefore b is even as well.

Since a and b are both even, the fraction a/b is not in lowest terms, thus contradicting our initial assumption. Since the initial assumption cannot have been true, it must be false, and the square root of 30 is irrational.

User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago
User Avatar

Square root of 3 cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers a and b. To prove that this statement is true, let us assume that is rational so that we may write square root of 3=a/b in reduced from so 3b^2=a^2 If b is odd, the so is b^2 and so is 3b^2 so a^2 is also odd which implies a is odd as well. Similarly if b is even, b^2 is even and so is 3b^2 so that means a^2 is even which implies a is even as well. Since a/b is in reduced from, any ratio of a/b where both a and b are even is not in reduced form (we could cancel 2 from the fraction) so we assume a and b are both odd. Now since both are odd, for some integers m and n we can write a=m+1 b=n+1 Now plug this into the equation 3b^2=a^2 and we have 3(4n2 + 4n + 1) = 4m2 + 4m + 1 which simplifies to 6n2 + 6n + 1 = 2(m2 + m) The right hand side of this is clearly even, but the left hand side is odd. We conclude that there is no solution and square root of 3 is therefore irrational.
Yes

User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago
User Avatar

In order to know whether or not √3 is a subset of the Irrational Numbers, all we need to show is that √3 is itself irrational.

Let's start out with the basic inequality 1 < 3 < 4.

Now, we'll take the square root of this inequality:

1 < √3 < 2.

If you subtract all numbers by 1, you get:

0 < √3 - 1 < 1.

If √3 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 √3. Therefore, √3n must be an integer, and n must be the smallest multiple of √3 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 √3n by (√3 - 1). This gives 3n - √3n. Well, 3n is an integer, and, as we explained above, √3n is also an integer; therefore, 3n - √3n is an integer as well. We're going to rearrange this expression to (√3n - n)√3 and then set the term (√3n - n) equal to p, for simplicity. This gives us the expression √3p, which is equal to 3n - √3n, and is an integer.

Remember, from above, that 0 < √3 - 1 < 1.

If we multiply this inequality by n, we get 0 < √3n - n < n, or, from what we defined above, 0 < p < n. This means that p < n and thus √3p < √3n. We've already determined that both √3p and √3n are integers, but recall that we said n was the smallest multiple of √3 to yield an integer value. Thus, √3p < √3n is a contradiction; therefore √3 can't be rational and so must be irrational. So, √3 is a subset of the irrational numbers.

Q.E.D.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why is the square root of three an irrational number?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp