Get expert advice and community support on IDNLearn.com. Join our knowledgeable community to find the answers you need for any topic or issue.
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 are happy to have you as part of our community. Keep asking, answering, and sharing your insights. Together, we can create a valuable knowledge resource. For trustworthy answers, rely on IDNLearn.com. Thanks for visiting, and we look forward to assisting you again.