What Makes a Number Irrational?
Recall from Section 1: a number is irrational if it cannot be written as , where and are integers and . Its decimal expansion goes on forever without ever settling into a repeating block.
Familiar examples are , , , and . In this section we don't just believe these are irrational — we prove it, using a powerful technique called proof by contradiction.
Key Point: To prove a number is irrational, we assume the opposite (that it is rational), and then show this assumption leads to something impossible. Since the assumption breaks, the number must be irrational.
[Board Important] 'Prove that is irrational' (and similar) is one of the most repeated board questions. Learn the standard proof structure thoroughly — it is worth 2 to 3 marks and the steps are always the same.
The Key Theorem We Will Use
The irrationality proofs rest on one important theorem that follows from the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.
Theorem: Let be a prime number. If divides (where is a positive integer), then divides .
Why this is true (the idea)
If divides , then must appear in the prime factorisation of . But the primes of are exactly the primes of , each appearing twice as often. So if is a factor of , it must already be a factor of .
Example
Since divides , it follows that divides . Likewise, if then , and if then .
Key Point: This theorem is the engine behind every irrationality proof in this chapter. State it before you use it in the exam.
[Board Important] The theorem requires to be prime. It can fail for non-primes — for instance , but .
Proof that is Irrational
This is the model proof. Learn its structure and you can adapt it to , , and many others.
To prove: is irrational.
Proof (by contradiction):
- Assume the opposite: Suppose is rational. Then we can write , where and are co-prime integers (no common factor other than 1) and .
- Rearrange and square: .
- Apply the theorem: Since divides , by the theorem divides . So write for some integer .
- Substitute back: . So divides , and hence divides .
- The contradiction: Now divides both and . But we assumed and are co-prime (no common factor). This is impossible.
- Conclusion: Our assumption was wrong, so is irrational.
Exam Tip: The contradiction always comes from assuming co-primeness and then finding a shared factor. Always begin by stating ' and are co-prime'.
Irrationality of Sums and Products
Once we know , , are irrational, we can prove that combinations like or are also irrational. These proofs are shorter and use two facts you already met in Section 1:
- (rational) ± (irrational) = irrational
- (non-zero rational) × (irrational) = irrational
Method (by contradiction)
To prove, say, is irrational:
- Assume is rational, say .
- Then . The right side is a difference of two rationals → rational.
- So would be rational — but we know is irrational. Contradiction.
- Hence is irrational.
Key Point: The trick is always to isolate the known irrational (like ) on one side. If the other side is forced to be rational, you have your contradiction.
[Board Important] State clearly which known result you are using (e.g. ' is irrational'). Examiners expect you to name the fact, not just assume it.
Solved Examples
Example 1: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume with co-prime, .
- Then , so divides , hence (theorem, ) divides . Write .
- Substitute: , so divides , hence divides .
- Then 3 divides both and — contradicting co-primeness.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: Identical structure to the proof, with 2 replaced by 3.
Example 2: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume , co-prime, .
- . Write .
- .
- So 5 divides both and — contradiction.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: Works for the square root of any prime number.
Example 3: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume is rational, say .
- Then . Since 5 and are rational, is rational.
- So would be rational — contradicting the known fact that is irrational.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: Isolate ; the rest must be rational, giving the contradiction.
Example 4: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume is rational, say .
- Then . The right side is a rational divided by a non-zero rational → rational.
- So would be rational — contradicting that is irrational.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: A non-zero rational times an irrational is always irrational.
Example 5: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Note (rationalising).
- Assume is rational, say . Then , which is rational.
- This contradicts being irrational.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: Rationalise first if it helps, then isolate the known irrational.
Example 6: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume (rational).
- Square both sides: .
- So , which would be rational.
- But is irrational (6 is not a perfect square). Contradiction.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: Squaring can convert a sum of surds into a single surd, which we then show is irrational.
Example 7: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume (rational).
- Then , a rational divided by a non-zero rational → rational.
- This contradicts being irrational.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: Same one-line idea as — divide out the rational coefficient.
Example 8: Prove is irrational
Solution:
- Assume (rational).
- Then , so , which is rational.
- This contradicts being irrational.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: First subtract the rational, then divide the coefficient, to isolate .
Example 9: Is irrational?
Solution:
- Assume , co-prime.
- , so , which means and ; hence and , so . Write .
- , so too.
- Then 6 divides both and — contradiction.
Final Answer: is irrational.
Takeaway: The square root of any non-perfect-square positive integer is irrational.
Example 10: Sum/difference of two irrationals can be rational
Show by an example that the sum of two irrational numbers can be rational.
Solution:
- Take the two irrational numbers and (the second is irrational since it is an irrational).
- Their sum is , which is rational.
Final Answer: is rational.
Takeaway: Unlike (rational)+(irrational), the sum of two irrationals is NOT always irrational — it depends on the numbers.