Looking for trustworthy answers? Westonci.ca is the ultimate Q&A platform where experts share their knowledge on various topics. Connect with a community of professionals ready to help you find accurate solutions to your questions quickly and efficiently. Connect with a community of professionals ready to provide precise solutions to your questions quickly and accurately.
Sagot :
To determine which number is irrational, an integer, and a real number, let’s analyze each of the options given:
A. [tex]\(0\)[/tex]:
- [tex]\(0\)[/tex] is an integer.
- [tex]\(0\)[/tex] is a rational number because it can be expressed as [tex]\( \frac{0}{1} \)[/tex].
- Therefore, [tex]\(0\)[/tex] is not an irrational number.
B. [tex]\( \frac{-4}{2} \)[/tex]:
- Simplifying [tex]\( \frac{-4}{2} \)[/tex] gives us [tex]\(-2\)[/tex].
- [tex]\(-2\)[/tex] is an integer.
- [tex]\(-2\)[/tex] is a rational number because it can be expressed as [tex]\( \frac{-2}{1} \)[/tex].
- Therefore, [tex]\(-2\)[/tex] is not an irrational number.
C. There is no such number.
- An irrational number cannot be an integer because integers by definition are rational numbers.
- An integer is always rational and cannot be both irrational and an integer at the same time.
- Therefore, Option C seems to be a valid conclusion.
D. [tex]\( \sqrt{4} \)[/tex]:
- Simplifying [tex]\( \sqrt{4} \)[/tex] gives us [tex]\(2\)[/tex].
- [tex]\(2\)[/tex] is an integer.
- [tex]\(2\)[/tex] is a rational number because it can be expressed as [tex]\( \frac{2}{1} \)[/tex].
- Therefore, [tex]\(2\)[/tex] is not an irrational number.
Based on the analysis of all the options, we can conclude that:
C. There is no such number.
is the correct answer because an integer cannot be an irrational number by definition.
A. [tex]\(0\)[/tex]:
- [tex]\(0\)[/tex] is an integer.
- [tex]\(0\)[/tex] is a rational number because it can be expressed as [tex]\( \frac{0}{1} \)[/tex].
- Therefore, [tex]\(0\)[/tex] is not an irrational number.
B. [tex]\( \frac{-4}{2} \)[/tex]:
- Simplifying [tex]\( \frac{-4}{2} \)[/tex] gives us [tex]\(-2\)[/tex].
- [tex]\(-2\)[/tex] is an integer.
- [tex]\(-2\)[/tex] is a rational number because it can be expressed as [tex]\( \frac{-2}{1} \)[/tex].
- Therefore, [tex]\(-2\)[/tex] is not an irrational number.
C. There is no such number.
- An irrational number cannot be an integer because integers by definition are rational numbers.
- An integer is always rational and cannot be both irrational and an integer at the same time.
- Therefore, Option C seems to be a valid conclusion.
D. [tex]\( \sqrt{4} \)[/tex]:
- Simplifying [tex]\( \sqrt{4} \)[/tex] gives us [tex]\(2\)[/tex].
- [tex]\(2\)[/tex] is an integer.
- [tex]\(2\)[/tex] is a rational number because it can be expressed as [tex]\( \frac{2}{1} \)[/tex].
- Therefore, [tex]\(2\)[/tex] is not an irrational number.
Based on the analysis of all the options, we can conclude that:
C. There is no such number.
is the correct answer because an integer cannot be an irrational number by definition.
We hope you found what you were looking for. Feel free to revisit us for more answers and updated information. Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. We're here to help at Westonci.ca. Keep visiting for the best answers to your questions.