MHB Is 2√(7)+4 an Irrational Number?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rational
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the expression 2√(7) + 4 is irrational. It explains that if this expression were rational, then √(7) would also be rational, leading to a contradiction. The argument uses the properties of rational numbers and prime factorization to demonstrate that both integers a and b would have a common factor of 7, which contradicts their definition as having no common factors. The initial confusion about the term "continued decimal number" is clarified, emphasizing that the nature of the decimal representation is not the reason for the irrationality of the expression. Ultimately, the conclusion is that 2√(7) + 4 is indeed an irrational number.
nycfunction
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
See picture for question and answer.
 

Attachments

  • MathMagic190527_1.png
    MathMagic190527_1.png
    11.5 KB · Views: 114
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What, exactly, do you mean by "continued decimal number"? If you mean simply that it is not a terminating decimal, a rational number such as 1/3 has that property. That's not the reason $2\sqrt{7}+ 4$ is irrational.
First, the rational numbers are "closed under subtraction and division" so if $x= 2\sqrt{7}+ 4$ were rational so would be $\sqrt{7}= (x- 4)/2$. And if $\sqrt{7}$ were rational then there would exist integers, a and b, with no common factors, such that $\sqrt{7}= \frac{a}{b}$. From that $7= \frac{a^2}{b^2}$ and $a^2= 7b^2$. That is, $a^2$ has a factor of 7 and, since 7 is a prime number, a has a factor of 7. a= 7n for some integer n so $a^2= 49n^2= 7b^2$. Then $b^2= 7n^2$ so, as before, b has a factor of 7, contradicting the fact that a and b has no factors in common.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
What, exactly, do you mean by "continued decimal number"? If you mean simply that it is not a terminating decimal, a rational number such as 1/3 has that property. That's not the reason 2\sqrt{7}+ 4 is irrational.

First, the rational numbers are "closed under subtraction and division" so if x= 2\sqrt{7}+ 4 were rational so would be \sqrt{7}= (x- 4)/2. And if \sqrt{7} were rational then there would exist integers, a and b, with no common factors, such that \sqrt{7}= \frac{a}{b}. From that 7= \frac{a^2}{b^2} and a^2= 7b^2. That is, a^2 has a factor of 7 and, since 7 is a prime number, a has a factor of 7. a= 7n for some integer n so a^2= 49n^2= 7b^2. Then b^2= 7n^2 so, as before, b has a factor of 7, contradicting the fact that a and b has no factors in common.

See attachment.
 

Attachments

  • MathMagic190527_2.png
    MathMagic190527_2.png
    12.1 KB · Views: 108
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Back
Top