MHB Is (27/4)/(6.75) a Whole, Natural, Integer, Rational, or Irrational Number?

AI Thread Summary
The expression (27/4)/(6.75) simplifies to 1, which is classified as a whole number, natural number, integer, and rational number. The discussion clarifies that it is not an irrational number. There was some confusion regarding the notation "Z," which is typically used for integers, not real numbers. Ultimately, the consensus is that (27/4)/(6.75) correctly fits into multiple numerical categories. The conclusion affirms its classification within the set of integers.
nycfunction
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Let Z = set of real numbers

Determine if (27/4)/(6.75) is a whole number, natural number, integer, rational or irrational.

I will divide as step 1.

27/4 = 6.75

So, 6.75 divided by 6.75 = 1.

Step 2, define 1.

The number 1 is whole or natural. It is also an integer and definitely a rational number because it can be expressed as 1/1, which is, of course, 1.

I conclude by saying that (27/4)/(6.75) belongs in the set of Z.

What do you say?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think that's a very strange way of putting it! Exactly what question are you trying to answer? You say "determine if (27/4)/(6.75) is a whole number, natural number, integer, rational, or irrational." "Real number" is not included in that list so there is no need to say that. Yes, it is a natural number, whole number, integer, and rational number. It is not an irrational number. You don't say that.

(And "Z" is a pretty standard notation for the integers, not the real numbers.)
 
HallsofIvy said:
I think that's a very strange way of putting it! Exactly what question are you trying to answer? You say "determine if (27/4)/(6.75) is a whole number, natural number, integer, rational, or irrational." "Real number" is not included in that list so there is no need to say that. Yes, it is a natural number, whole number, integer, and rational number. It is not an irrational number. You don't say that.

(And "Z" is a pretty standard notation for the integers, not the real numbers.)

Apparently some typos at my end. Yes, I meant to define Z as integers not real numbers. The question comes from a Cohen precalculus textbook. Basically, in the world of real numbers, (27/4)/(6.75) falls in the category of whole numbers, natural or counting numbers, rational numbers and surely an integer. I say this is correctly stated. You?
 
nycfunction said:
Apparently some typos at my end. Yes, i meant to define Z as integers not real numbers.
The question comes from a cohen precalculus textbook. Basically, in the world of real numbers, (27/4)/(6.75)
falls in the category of whole numbers, natural or counting numbers, rational numbers and surely an integer.
I say this is correctly stated. You?
z = {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
 
Wilmer said:
z = {..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}

Ok. I am right. The fraction (27/4)/(6.75) is a real number. It falls into the category of whole number, natural or counting number, rational, and integer.
 
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...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top