Practice question · Multiple choice
The classic proof that √2 is irrational assumes a fraction in lowest terms and derives that both numerator and denominator are even. Why is that a contradiction rather than merely an odd result?
Hints
- What does "in lowest terms" assert about the numerator and denominator?
- What have you just derived about them? Can both statements hold?
Show the answer
B. Because 'lowest terms' means no common factor, and both even share 2.
Why
The proof makes the assumption as strong as possible and then breaks it: lowest terms means gcd(a, b) = 1, and the algebra forces both to be even. A fraction like 4/6 is perfectly valid, it is simply not in lowest terms. The contradiction is that it cannot be both reduced and reducible, and the argument generalises to every non-square n.
Practise Rational and Irrational Numbers
The app has 4 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Mathematics I is free to start.
More questions on Rational and Irrational Numbers
- Write 84/126 in lowest terms. What is the numerator of the reduced fraction?
- Sort each number by whether it is rational or irrational.
- Order the steps of the proof by contradiction that the square root of 2 is irrational.
- Complete the characterization of irrational numbers.
- Between any two rationals lies another rational, so they leave no gaps you can point to. Yet they have gaps.…
- Compute 2/3 + 3/4 and write the result in lowest terms. What is the numerator?
- Select every statement that is TRUE.
- Match each number or term to its defining feature.