Q.Prove that 3 is an irrational number. (Hint: Follow the method used to prove 2∈/Q.)
Tamil Nadu DgeTextbookSubjectiveImportance★★★★★est
2% · 2/128 Questions
✓ Free question
Concept understanding — Real Number System
The real numbers are built up in stages, each solving a problem the previous set could not: N={1,2,3,…} (counting) ⊂W={0,1,2,…} (adds zero) ⊂Z={…,−1,0,1,…} (adds negatives, for debts) ⊂Q={m/n:m,n∈Z,n=0} (adds ratios, for even division) ⊂R (fills in every remaining point of the number line, including the irrationals).
A rational number's decimal expansion always terminates or eventually repeats; conversely, any terminating or repeating decimal is rational. Numbers whose decimals neither terminate nor repeat are irrational, denoted Q′, with R=Q∪Q′ and Q∩Q′=∅.
Proving a number irrational (by contradiction). To show 2∈/Q: assume 2=m/n in lowest terms; squaring gives m2=2n2, so m is even; writing m=2k gives n2=2k2, so n is even too -- contradicting that m,n share no common factor. The identical technique proves 3, 5, π, etc. irrational.
Density. Between any two distinct rationals there is always another rational (e.g. their average); yet the rationals still leave gaps on the number line -- the diagonal of a unit square, 2, is a point no rational reaches.
Combining irrationals. Sums, differences, and products of irrational numbers are NOT automatically irrational: (1+2)−2=1∈Q, and 2×8=4∈Q -- the irrational parts can cancel.
Note
N⊂W⊂Z⊂Q⊂R, and the real-number field/order axioms (closure, associativity, distributivity, trichotomy, and 'multiplying an inequality by a negative number flips it') underlie every algebraic manipulation in this chapter.
Proof by contradiction: assume a lowest-terms fraction equals 3 and show both numerator and denominator must share a factor of 3.
✓Final answer
3 is irrational.
Step 1. Suppose, for contradiction, that 3 is rational. Then 3=nm for positive integers m,n with no common factor greater than 1.
Step 2. Squaring, 3=n2m2, so m2=3n2. Hence 3∣m2, and since 3 is prime, 3∣m.
Step 3. Write m=3p for some integer p. Then 9p2=3n2, so n2=3p2, which means 3∣n2 and hence 3∣n.
Step 4. Now both m and n are divisible by 3, contradicting the assumption that m,n have no common factor greater than 1.
Step 5. The contradiction shows the original assumption is false, so 3 cannot be written as nm; it is irrational.
✓Final answer
3 is irrational (proved by contradiction, exactly mirroring the 2 proof).
Forgetting to justify why 3∣m2⇒3∣m (true because 3 is prime).
Not stating the lowest-terms assumption explicitly, which is what the contradiction attacks.