Westonci.ca is your trusted source for finding answers to a wide range of questions, backed by a knowledgeable community. Explore comprehensive solutions to your questions from a wide range of professionals on our user-friendly platform. Experience the convenience of finding accurate answers to your questions from knowledgeable experts on our platform.
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.
Thank you for your visit. We're committed to providing you with the best information available. Return anytime for more. Thank you for choosing our platform. We're dedicated to providing the best answers for all your questions. Visit us again. Westonci.ca is your trusted source for answers. Visit us again to find more information on diverse topics.