which group of numbers are more numerous? A. rational B. irrational

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions.

A community for students.

which group of numbers are more numerous? A. rational B. irrational

Mathematics
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this and thousands of other questions

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081129115431AAzAtYD
a theoretical question, i just want your insights!
i would go w/ irrational cuz they are uncountably infinte

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

here http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1259484.
irrational right?
Irrational. There are an infinite amount. For an example, consider 1.24 and 1.25 (completely random). There's 1.245 in between, amnd 1.246. Between those, there's 1.2455 and 1.2456. This goes on for \(\ \Huge \infty !\)
yeah because between 1 and 2 there can be an infinite
yeah, perhaps you're right! basing on grammar and language rule,. but i think in other sense, rational are more in number than irrational..
infinity times infinity is more than infinity
I think both are numerous. There's an infinite amount of rational numbers, and an infinite amount of irrational numbers. Both go \(\ \huge \rightarrow \infty . \)
\(\ \Huge \pm\infty that is \).
The answer is the irrational numbers. For some better understanding of why, you need to understand Cantor's work in the countability of infinite sets. The rationals are countably infinite; the irrationals are uncountably infinite.
Oh @nbouscal hit the spot!!
Brief coverage of the notion of countability: A set is countably infinite if it can be put into a bijection with the natural numbers. If it cannot, then it is uncountably infinite. Cantor's proof of the uncountability of the reals is known as his diagonal argument, and is a very fun proof. There are a lot of resources available on the web for learning about and understanding this proof.
our professor said, the answer is irrational.. but i hate to accept his, idea same as yours, by saying the difference in definition- "countable and uncountable".
Why do you hate to accept it? Have you seen and understood Cantor's diagonal argument? It is quite intuitive once you understand it.
may i have the website of it?
Here is a thread here on OS that may help you: http://openstudy.com/updates/4fc25b57e4b0964abc83b70b Here is Wikipedia on Cantor's diagonal argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument Here is Professor Francis Su of Harvey Mudd giving a lecture on Countable and Uncountable Sets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mciBPGCvpBk
Uncountable is not at all synonymous to nonexistent, it is simply saying that you can't count them, for a specific definition of counting (bijection to the naturals).
i'm not yet convinced. but, anyway, thanks for the ideas.
If you are not yet convinced then you simply have not yet understood the argument :)
i haven't read it yet! :-)

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question