Best Answer

Suppose A = 2 + sqrt(3)

and

B = 5 - sqrt(3)

Then A and B are two Irrational Numbers but

A + B = 2 + sqrt(3) + 5 - sqrt(3) = 7 which is rational.

Study guides

☆☆

Q: Give one example for if you add two irrational number and answer should get in rational number?

Write your answer...

Submit

Still have questions?

Continue Learning about Other Math

The sum or the difference between two irrational numbers could either be rational or irrational, however, it should be a real number.

Yes.

A rational number is a number that can be written in the form a/b with a and b relatively prime integers - a and b are whole numbers with no common factors (eg if a=3 then b can't be 3,6,9,12,etc). Rational numbers have decimal representations that either terminate (like 3/4=0.75) or are infinitely recurring (like 1/9=0.1111111111... or 5/7=0.714285|714285|714285...). Irrational numbers (numbers that aren't rational) have infinite decimals that never repeat (like pi=3.1415926535..., e=2.7182818284590...). It is possible to prove that unless n is a square number, the square root of n is irrational - if n can't be written as m^2 then n^0.5 is irrational. Since you can't find a and b such that (a/b)^2=7 the square root of 7 is irrational. It should be noted that you can get as close as you like to 7^0.5 with rational numbers but you can never reach it exactly. See related question.

To divide any number by zero will give infinity and therefore an error.

Yes, by definition.

Related questions

Because irrational numbers are defined as real numbers which are not rational.

from another wikianswers page: say that 'a' is rational, and that 'b' is irrational. assume that a + b equals a rational number, called c. so a + b = c subtract a from both sides. you get b = c - a. but c - a is a rational number subtracted from a rational number, which should equal another rational number. However, b is an irrational number in our equation, so our assumption that a + b equals a rational number must be wrong.

3.1415 is rational (as are all other terminating decimals). Note that these are some of the first few digits of pi (3.14159…, which really should be rounded to 3.1416 not 5); pi is an irrational number. Approximations of pi are generally rational numbers.

The sum or the difference between two irrational numbers could either be rational or irrational, however, it should be a real number.

It is irrational because its decimal places go on forever. They don't a) end b) have a pattern or c) are the same number repeated What I was asking was pi is C/d. Circumference is a number and so is diameter. p/q=rational. Then why is pi irrational?

Yes, but unless you are able to fully explain how they are being irrational it is unlikely they will listen to you, and in that case you should not tell them they are being irrational.

A rational number is a number that can be written in the form a/b with a and b relatively prime integers - a and b are whole numbers with no common factors (eg if a=3 then b can't be 3,6,9,12,etc). Rational numbers have decimal representations that either terminate (like 3/4=0.75) or are infinitely recurring (like 1/9=0.1111111111... or 5/7=0.714285|714285|714285...). Irrational numbers (numbers that aren't rational) have infinite decimals that never repeat (like pi=3.1415926535..., e=2.7182818284590...). It is possible to prove that unless n is a square number, the square root of n is irrational - if n can't be written as m^2 then n^0.5 is irrational. Since you can't find a and b such that (a/b)^2=7 the square root of 7 is irrational. It should be noted that you can get as close as you like to 7^0.5 with rational numbers but you can never reach it exactly.

Yes, that is how a rational number is defined.

Yes.

The square root of 2 is irrational because it cannot be expressed as a fraction in which the numerator and denominator are both integers.Another way of saying this is that the square root of 2 will have infinite decimal places in any a number system of any radix (base 10, base 2, base 3, base 16, etc)This should not be confused with imaginary numbers. Rational and Irrational numbers together combine to make the Real numbers, imaginary numbers are, however, not Real. Imaginary numbers are those that can be expressed as a Real number multiplied by the square root of negative 1 (also known as i or j)So, strictly speaking, both sqrt(2) and sqrt(-1) are "not rational numbers", however, they are not both "irrational" numbers.

A rational number is a number that can be written in the form a/b with a and b relatively prime integers - a and b are whole numbers with no common factors (eg if a=3 then b can't be 3,6,9,12,etc). Rational numbers have decimal representations that either terminate (like 3/4=0.75) or are infinitely recurring (like 1/9=0.1111111111... or 5/7=0.714285|714285|714285...). Irrational numbers (numbers that aren't rational) have infinite decimals that never repeat (like pi=3.1415926535..., e=2.7182818284590...). It is possible to prove that unless n is a square number, the square root of n is irrational - if n can't be written as m^2 then n^0.5 is irrational. Since you can't find a and b such that (a/b)^2=7 the square root of 7 is irrational. It should be noted that you can get as close as you like to 7^0.5 with rational numbers but you can never reach it exactly. See related question.

A mathematical approach:Yes they are. Irrational numbers are very real, for example - the square root of two - which is irrational (but can be plotted in a number line without difficulty with a compass and straight edge). All numbers you can think of (even if you cant white them out) are real numbers.They are real, but they can't be expressed as fractions.A philosophical approach:According to ME, there should be a limit. If there is a number which is not ending, we can't say that it is a number because it has not ended yet, its not a complete number. That's why, any number which is not ending is not a number, so irrational numbers and some rational numbers are not numbers and we can't plot them on real line, no matter how much depth we are into it. If there is a number 1.0000... (100 million 0's) ...1, we can plot it by dividing real line into required many parts but we cant plot a number like 1.1111....1111....(up to, we don't know), actually that's not a number yet.Maths should be changed.

People also asked