True or False?
The sum of two positive irrational numbers must be irrational.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
0.121121112121121112...... is irrational. 0.878878887878878887...... is also irrational. The sum of these two numbers is 0.99999999.... which equals 1, a rational number.
Log in to reply
The sum of two irrational numbers isn't always rational. The sum can be irrational too.
Log in to reply
The statement remains false though, as you only need one example of contradiction.
Log in to reply
@Ron Lauterbach – This is the right point. ⌣ ¨
Although this is the right approach, those example numbers appear to repeat, so they look rational from the excerpts given! If I count how many 1s there are before each 2, I see: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3...
But -e is not a positive number. (3-e) is the contraction of (3+(-e)).yes or no?
Log in to reply
Don't get blinded by contractions when reading an incomprehensible number that is written in a comprehensible form.
You understand that subtracting π from any positive integer greater than π results in a positive irrational number. But because the human mathematical collective hasn't decreed that any of these are important enough to deserve their own symbol that neatly represents each resulting positive irrational number, we rely on a representation that allows for a common understanding, like ( 4 − π ).
I Haven't done irrational numbers that much but I thought that added together they could be any number.
How do we know that e is not rational?
Log in to reply
We could assume that it is Euler's Number - e , though the e in this solution could actually be any positive irrational number less than 3.
How is this (and most of the other examples given) not the sum of 3 numbers? Isn't (3-e) an expression describing the sum of two numbers?
Log in to reply
The square root of 2 is 1.4142135623..... . If you add 0.5857864376...., which is 2 - sqrt(2), you get 1.99999999999.... which is equal to 2.
If you subtract e from 3, what do you get? A number, right? That's the meaning of the expression "(3-e)"
Don't confuse the language of math with the meaning of the symbols being represented.
First of all, it wouldn't be the sum of two numbers as it uses a subtract symbol. However, 3 - e is perfectly acceptable as an irrational number
All counter examples must be of the form x and y-x, where x is a positive irrational number and y is a rational number greater than x. Conversely, any example of this form is a counter example.
Log in to reply
That's an interesting observation. Can you prove it?
Great example, thanks!
Note 0 . 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 ⋯ has repeating length of 3 . let p = 0 . 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 = 1 0 3 − 1 1 2 1 = 9 9 9 1 2 1 = rational
Log in to reply
It's 0.12112111211112...., so it's irrational. The number of 1's in between the 2's is increasing.
Log in to reply
I see ,as i didn't notice the increment of 1's . :)
Relevant wiki: Rational Numbers - Problem Solving
2 is irrational.
( 8 − 2 ) is irrational.
( 8 − 2 ) + 2 = 8
Hence 8 is not irrational.
I used the same numbers to have an example
I thought -√2 is a negative number as in 8+(-√2). I guess my math is a little rusty.
Log in to reply
The sum 8 − 2 results in an irrational number that is positive. We don't have a standardised form with which to represent this irrational number (like π does), so the easiest way for us to present this irrational number, such that there is a common understanding of what this number is, is to present it as ( 8 − 2 ).
🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒🖒
I'm sorry does the 2 become a 1? I'm lost. I suck a math 😕
That’s a trick question as the sum of two irrationals is always irrational. E.G; Pi + the square root of 2. Cheers
Log in to reply
You should know better than to assume proof of an affirmative absolute statement by providing the most finite of examples.
It only takes one counter-example against the statement posed in this problem for the answer of False to be the correct answer.
The sum 8 − 2 results in a positive irrational number. It is a number. It exists. But we don't have infinite time and space to put its pure form down in a solution, so the most succinct way of presenting it is ( 8 − 2 ) .
Relevant wiki: Rational Numbers - Problem Solving
The sum of two positive irrational numbers sometimes Irrational, Sometimes Rational
Example:
X = 8 + 2
and
Y = 9 − 2
so,
X + Y = 8 + 2 + 9 − 2
so,
X + Y = 8 + 9 = 1 7 (Rational)
Again,
X = 2 + 7
Y = 2 + 1 1
So,
X + Y = 4 + 7 + 1 1 (Irrational)
How are these irrational numbers ? Are they not equations with irrational numbers in them ?
Log in to reply
No, these are irrational numbers
4 + 7 is irrational.
1 1 is irrational.
8 + 2 is irrational.
9 − 2 is irrational.
Do you get it?
Seems a little silly, since the only way to add irrational components to achieve a rational is to subtract the exact irrational. Is there any absolute value of an irrational that can be added to another to achieve a rational number?
Log in to reply
I always thought the whole point of an irrational is that there is no such thing as an "absolute" value for an irrational.
Your examples are wrong. All examples have to be in the form x+(y-x), where x is an irrational number and y is a rational number greater than x. EX-> x= sqrt(3) y= 7 -> (sqrt(3)) + (7-sqrt(3)) -> 7
Log in to reply
Why have to be in the form x+(y-x)?
Just because they're in that form, it doesn't make them wrong. It's the meaning behind the expressions that matters.
0.1011011101111011111... + 0.0100100010000100000...=0.1111111111111111111...= 9 1
good thinking.they are infinite overlapping decimal fraction.
The quick way is counter example
i.e ( k) + (k-∆), where (∆=any irrational) and (k is not irrational)
A counter example is: (2- 2 ) + 2 =2
it can be proved in this way
irrational number +irrational number=rational
counter example: ( 3 − 3 ) + 3 = 3
The problem states that both numbers must be positive, hence your first example does not work. But your second is still valid.
Log in to reply
3 - \sqrt(3) is positive.
Edit: finally got LaTeX to work in comment. Point was
( 3 − 3 ) is a positive number.
Log in to reply
actually ,i have reshaped the problem a bit.my first example didn't work.
Log in to reply
@Mohammad Khaza – That would explain some of the confusion. My comment reflected what I saw: two numbers: (3-sqrt(3)) and sqrt(3). Both of these are positive numbers.
3 is not positive.
Log in to reply
@Ron Lauterbach – Bad interface and then the Internet froze on me, keeping me from correcting it. Obviously I don't think the sum of two negative numbers is positive.
Log in to reply
@Richard Desper – 3 is a positive number? I know it is confusing " @Richard Desper - 3"
Suppose the statement is true. Then let q be rational and r be irrational, q>r. Then t=q-r must be rational, or else t+r=q will not be irrational, in contradiction with the statement. If t is rational, than r=t-q is rational, as the sum of the rational numbers t and -q is always rational (the fact that you can always choose a common denominator is a proof for it).That's another contradiction.
Therefore, the statement is false.
▄
type 'then' instead of than.
l g ( 2 ) + l g ( 5 ) = l g ( 2 ∗ 5 ) = l g ( 1 0 ) = 1
Am I making a unique counter example?
I think your the first one to think of logarithms.
Imagine having an irrational number with a decimal place like a = 0 . 1 2 3 1 1 4 9 5 8 2 9 5 . . .
The thing to notice is how there always exist another irrational number b that adds up a such that it equals m . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 . . . where m is an integer in the range [ 0 ; 9 ] and thus this evaluates to a + b = m + 1 , which is an integer and thus rational.
The number b is basically, in any number in the decimal position in the irrational number a , the corresponding decimal position's number in b is exactly 9 minus that of in a , and thus the two's adds up to 9. Doing this to all other decimal positions in a and sum a and b will lend the result mentioned, m . 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 . . . = m + 1 .
Therefore, irrational + irrational can be rational.
let x be any positive irrational number (1-x) + x = 1
therefore, irrational num + irrational num not always equal to irrational number
I am so new to this but eager to learn Barney style. So when e+(3-e)= 3 you are just negating the e? Is that how I am to understand it? Sorry I'm so new!!!
2 and − 2 are irrational, but 2 + ( − 2 ) = 0 = 1 0
Let A be an irrational number such that it is a non-repeating, non terminating decimal. Since there are only ten possible digitals for each place value of A, it is possible to find an irrational number B such that each digit of B is selected so that when the digits are added you get a fixed value e.g zero or three In this case the sum of A and B will give you a repeating decimal number which is rational!
2 positives make a negative, easy
arrr irrational, NOT imaginary...
Take some irrational number x , equal to something such as 3 . 1 5 2 3 7 9 6 and so on. We could make a new irrational number y , such that for each digit after the decimal point of x , the digit of y at that point is equal to the difference between the digit of x at that point and 9 . For the value of x given earlier, y would be 0 . 8 4 7 6 2 0 3 . . . and so on. Now x + y = c e i l ( x ) , meaning that we have added two irrational numbers to produce a rational number.
Basically, it depends on the number
It says must be irrational. If you can find one example, the statement is false.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Rational Numbers - Problem Solving
Take e and ( 3 − e ) for instance. e + ( 3 − e ) = 3 Therefore it must not be true. The statement is false.