No.
sqrt(2) - sqrt(2) = 0, which is rational.
No.
sqrt(2) - sqrt(2) = 0, which is rational.
No.
sqrt(2) - sqrt(2) = 0, which is rational.
No.
sqrt(2) - sqrt(2) = 0, which is rational.
No.
sqrt(2) - sqrt(2) = 0, which is rational.
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.
Rational and irrational numbers are part of the set of real numbers. There are an infinite number of rational numbers and an infinite number of irrational numbers. But rational numbers are countable infinite, while irrational are uncountable. You can search for these terms for more information. Basically, countable means that you could arrange them in such a way as to count each and every one (though you'd never count them all since there is an infinite number of them). I guess another similarity is: the set of rational numbers is closed for addition and subtraction; the set of irrational numbers is closed for addition and subtraction.
Irrational numbers are not closed under any of the fundamental operations. You can always find cases where you add two irrational numbers (for example), and get a rational result. On the other hand, the set of real numbers (which includes both rational and irrational numbers) is closed under addition, subtraction, and multiplication - and if you exclude the zero, under division.
A set of real numbers is closed under subtraction when you take two real numbers and subtract , the answer is always a real number .
It cannot be closed under the four basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) because it is indeed possible to come up with two negative irrational numbers such that their sum/difference/product/quotient is a rational number, indicating that the set is not closed. You will have to think of a different operation.
no it is not
It depends on your definition of whole numbers. The classic definition of whole numbers is the set of counting numbers and zero. In this case, the set of whole numbers is not closed under subtraction, because 3-6 = -3, and -3 is not a member of this set. However, if you use whole numbers as the set of all integers, then whole numbers would be closed under subtraction.
No. You can well multiply two irrational numbers and get a result that is not an irrational number.
To be closed under an operation, when that operation is applied to two member of a set then the result must also be a member of the set. Thus the sets ℂ (Complex numbers), ℝ (Real Numbers), ℚ (Rational Numbers) and ℤ (integers) are closed under subtraction. ℤ+ (the positive integers), ℤ- (the negative integers) and ℕ (the natural numbers) are not closed under subtraction as subtraction can lead to a result which is not a member of the set.
Subtraction.
Yes. The set of real numbers is closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication. The set of real numbers without zero is closed under division.
No.A set is closed under subtraction if when you subtract any two numbers in the set, the answer is always a member of the set.The natural numbers are 1,2,3,4, ... If you subtract 5 from 3 the answer is -2 which is not a natural number.