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.

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

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

the question is incomplete
.... Show that if {A}, and {B}. ?

No it's complete

could you please, check the link again

No I checked it again with the paper...

huh i need ur definition or i'll show u how with mine

wait a sec

hmmm

does I represent imaginary ?

and Q rational number ?

I-irrational Q-rational

hehehe ok

|dw:1433147116393:dw|

shouldn't we have to define (c.d)?

but how can we explain about the rationals contained in (c,d)?

we dont need them see (c,d) is subset of I and (0,1) so it does not have rational at all

can we make an interval without rationals?

yes sure this is the main idea of the question :)

Do we have to prove that we can make an interval without rationals?

its given in the question :O
I and (0,1) means all real btw 0 and 1 without rational

no no I'm talking about the interval (c,d)

oh that really works

yeah that works because rational numbers are dense or something

hehehe yeah woah :O

@ganeshie8 thanks... Would telling that be sufficient in proving our second proposition rigorously?

Yes, I think that is a rigorous proof for second part.

plz medal ganesh for second idea he deserves it :)

You know better than me, I'll do it. :)

\[\href{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix}{hey}\]

\[\href{
hey
}{ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radix}\]