answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

In fact, the statement is true. Consequently, there is not a proper counterexample. The fallacy is in asserting that a terminating decimal is not a repeating decimal.

First, there is the trivial argument that any terminating decimal can be written with a repeating string of trailing zeros. But, Cantor or Dedekind (I can't remember which) proved that any terminating decimal can also be expressed as a repeating decimal.

For example, 2.35 can be written as 2.3499...

Or 150,000 as 149,999.99...

Thus, a terminating decimal becomes a recurring decimal. As a consequence, all real numbers can be expressed as infinite decimals. And that proves closure under addition.

User Avatar

Wiki User

โˆ™ 2012-08-07 06:12:22
This answer is:
User Avatar
Study guides

Algebra

20 cards

A polynomial of degree zero is a constant term

The grouping method of factoring can still be used when only some of the terms share a common factor A True B False

The sum or difference of p and q is the of the x-term in the trinomial

A number a power of a variable or a product of the two is a monomial while a polynomial is the of monomials

โžก๏ธ
See all cards
3.74
โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…โ˜†โ˜…
818 Reviews
More answers
User Avatar

Anonymous

Lvl 1
โˆ™ 2020-08-20 00:50:49

False because they will always repeating

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What is a counterexample to show that the repeating decimals are closed under subtraction false?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What is the counterexample for the repeating decimals are closed under division?

Division by 0, which can also be written as 0.000... (repeating) is not defined.


What is a counterexample to show that the repeating decimals are closed under addition false?

There cannot be a counterexample since the assertion is true. This requires you to accept the true fact that the terminating decimal 1.25, for example, is equivalent to the repeating decimal 1.25000... (or even 1.24999.... ).


What is an example of a counterexample for the difference of two whole numbers is a whole number?

There is no counterexample because the set of whole numbers is closed under addition (and subtraction).


What is a counterexample to the set of negative numbers is closed under subtraction?

-2 - (-5) = -2 + +5 = +3. (+3 is not in the set of negative numbers.)


Give ten examples of natural number are closed under subtraction and division?

You can give hundreds of examples, but a single counterexample shows that natural numbers are NOT closed under subtraction or division. For example, 1 - 2 is NOT a natural number, and 1 / 2 is NOT a natural number.


Is the set of irrational numbers closed under subtraction?

No; here's a counterexample to show that the set of irrational numbers is NOT closed under subtraction: pi - pi = 0. pi is an irrational number. If you subtract it from itself, you get zero, which is a rational number. Closure would require that the difference(answer) be an irrational number as well, which it isn't. Therefore the set of irrational numbers is NOT closed under subtraction.


Are polynomial expressions closed under subtraction?

Yes they are closed under multiplication, addition, and subtraction.


Are the prime numbers closed for subtraction?

No.


Are integers closed under subtraction?

Yes.


Is a counting number closed under subtraction?

No.


Are rational numbers closed under subtraction?

Yes. They are closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication. The rational numbers WITHOUT ZERO are closed under division.


The terminating decimals are closed under division?

no

People also asked