- Prove that is an irrational number.
- Prove that is an irrational number.
is irrational. Proof by contradiction: assume in lowest terms ( co-prime, ). Squaring gives , so divides and, since is prime, divides ; write . Substituting gives , i.e. , so divides and hence divides . Thus is a common factor of both and , contradicting that was in its lowest (co-prime) form. This contradiction proves the initial assumption false, so cannot be expressed as — hence is irrational.
Marking Scheme
- 11 mark: setting up the contradiction — assume with co-prime integers, , and squaring to obtain .
- 21 mark: correctly using the prime-divisibility property to conclude divides , writing , and deriving so that divides .
- 31 mark: stating the contradiction ( is a common factor of and , contradicting co-primality) and concluding that is irrational.
Hint
Assume in lowest terms, square to get , use the fact that (a prime) dividing forces to divide , then show also divides — a contradiction.
Quick Oral Answer
I assume in lowest terms; squaring gives , so divides , hence and then means divides too — but a and b were co-prime, a contradiction, so must be irrational.
Analysis & Explanation
This is the standard NCERT proof-by-contradiction, resting on one lemma: if a prime divides , then divides .
Concept
- Assume is rational, i.e. with co-prime integers; squaring gives , so divides .
- Since is prime, divides ; write , substitute back to get , so divides too.
- Now is a common factor of and , contradicting that was in lowest terms — hence is irrational.
Common mistakes
- Applying the divisibility lemma with a non-prime number (e.g. divides but does not divide ) — the lemma only works because 3 is prime, and this must be stated.
- Forgetting to declare at the start that a and b are co-prime — that is exactly the assumption the final contradiction breaks.
Real-world
- The discovery that , etc. cannot be written as fractions shattered the ancient Greek belief that 'all is number', reportedly troubling the Pythagoreans deeply.
Common Mistakes
- 1Using the divisibility property with a composite number (e.g. 'if divides then... ' stated without noting 3 is prime, or worse applying it to 4 or 6) — the lemma holds only for primes.
- 2Forgetting to state at the outset that a and b are co-prime (in lowest terms), which removes the very contradiction the proof relies on.
- 3Writing a numerical/decimal 'proof' (e.g. ... never repeats) — this is not a valid proof; CBSE requires the algebraic contradiction argument.
Previously Asked
Prove that √3 is an irrational number.
Prove that √3 is irrational.
Interesting Facts
The irrationality of numbers like and was known to the ancient Greeks around the 5th century BCE; legend says the Pythagorean Hippasus was punished for revealing that such 'incommensurable' magnitudes exist.
is called Theodorus' constant, after Theodorus of Cyrene who proved the irrationality of the square roots of 3, 5, 7, … up to 17.
Spotted a mistake or something unclear?
Tell us — we fix reported answers fast.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why must a and b be co-prime at the start?
The whole proof relies on reaching a contradiction. By assuming a/b is in lowest terms (co-prime), showing that 3 divides both a and b becomes an impossibility, which is exactly the contradiction that proves is irrational.
Why does dividing imply divides ?
Because 3 is a prime number. By the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, if a prime divides , it must appear in the prime factorisation of , so divides . This fails for composite numbers like 4.
Can I prove it just by writing the decimal of ?
No. Observing that looks non-repeating is not a proof, because you cannot show non-repetition by writing finitely many digits. CBSE requires the logical contradiction argument.