MHB Is 7 an irrational number in the set of integers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfunction
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers Set
AI Thread Summary
The number 7 is classified as a natural number, an integer, and a rational number since it can be expressed as a fraction (7/1). While all positive integers are considered whole numbers, there is debate about whether 0 should be included in this category. Not all integers are natural numbers, as negative integers like -1 do not qualify. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding definitions, particularly regarding irrational numbers, which 7 is not. Clarity in terminology is essential to avoid confusion in mathematical classifications.
nycfunction
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Determine if the number 7 is a natural number, an integer, a rational or irrational number.

I know that integers include positive and negative numbers and 0.

Let Z = the set of integers

Z = {. . . -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, . . .}

I also know that any integer Z can be written as Z/1 = Z.

I will conclude by saying the following:

7 = 7/1

So, 7 is a natural number, an integer and a rational number (because it can be written as a fraction over 1).

Does this apply to all integers, Z?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi nycfunction.

nycfunction said:
So, 7 is a natural number, an integer and a rational number (because it can be written as a fraction over 1).
That’s correct.

nycfunction said:
Does this apply to all integers, Z?
Let’s take an example, $-1$. It is an integer, but is it a natural number?
 
Olinguito said:
Hi nycfunction.

That’s correct.

Let’s take an example, $-1$. It is an integer, but is it a natural number?


The integer -1 is not a natural number aka whole number. This means not all integers Z are natural or whole numbers. Negative numbers are excluded.
 
You make your post unnecessarily confusing by using "Z" for the set of all integers and to mean an individual integer.
 
nycfunction said:
The integer -1 is not a natural number aka whole number. This means not all integers Z are natural or whole numbers. Negative numbers are excluded.
Many would agree but there is confusion about whether we should count 0 as a whole number. Some say yes, some say no. You can definitely say that all positive integers are whole numbers.

-Dan
 
Also, you do not address the last part of the problem. Is "7" an irrational number? What is the definition of "irrational number"? In fact, all of these are just a question of whether you know the definitions.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top