Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To make a case that "$0$ is not rational", i.e., that the definition of "rational number" should exclude $0$, one would want a compelling reason, such as "the statement of a useful theorem becomes awkward if $0$ is (regarded as) rational".
So 0 is not an irrational number. Some (in fact most) irrational numbers are not algebraic, that is they are not the roots of polynomials with integer coefficients. These numbers are called transcendental numbers. π and e are both transcendental numbers. Answer link. 0 is a rational, whole, integer and real number.
Yes, though it's open to debate. A rational number is a whole number divided by a whole number. A whole number must be the sum of two other integers, as two integers can only ever make another integer. Therefore, 0 is an integer because it is 3 + (-3), both of which are whole. And so 0 may be written as a whole number divided by a whole number as 0/1 or even (3-3)/1 = 0 You can also think of 0 ...
I think of the number zero as a whole number. It can certainly be a ratio = $\frac{0}{x}, x \neq 0.$ Therefore it is rational. But any ratio equaling zero involves zero, or is irrational, e.g.$\frac{x}{\infty}, x \neq 0$ is not a ratio of integers. Can a rational number that is rational only when the number itself is involved still be rational?
The rational number 0 can be represented as the quotient of an integer by a non-zero integer in infinitely many ways: 0 = 0 d (d ∈ Z ∖ {0}). Choosing d = 1 is a natural choice: every rational number can be represented in one and only one way as n d with n ∈ Z, d ∈ N and gcd (n, d) = 1. In the case of 0, that representation is 0 1.
Q: does the multiplication of a and b result in a rational or irrational number?: Proof: because b is rational: b = u/j where u and j are integers. Assume ab is rational: ab = k/n, where k and n are integers. a = k/bn a = k/(n(u/j)) a = jk/un. before we declared a as irrational, but now it is rational; a contradiction. Therefore ab must be ...
Points have measure zero, and Q is countable. Using the countable additivity of Lebesgue measure doesn't seem in the spirit of the problem, or the example proofs given. The originally approach does in fact work, with slight modification. Notice we run into the problem that ∑∞ n = 12ϵ = ∞. We need a convergent sum.
Irrational times non-zero rational is irrational number. If not, suppose a is a irrational number and b is non-zero rational number such that ab=c, where c is a rational number.As collection of all rational number forms field.so any non-zero rational is invertible.So that would imply a is rational number--which is not true.
Division by zero does not give you a number. (In the mathematical sense,) "irrational" applies only to numbers. Division by zero does not result in a number. Therefore, the term "irrational" does not apply. ∙ 0 ∙ 0 is not rational, is not irrational, it's innumber (if there's ever such a thing). Your calculator knows, or at least mine does.
Prove that the quotient of a nonzero rational number and an irrational number is irrational 0 Given a rational number and an irrational number, both greater than 0, prove that the product between them is irrational.