You have used these numbers for years. This topic asks a different question: which rules are we assuming, and what can be proved from them. That shift — from calculating to justifying — is what CAPE is testing.
Sets of numbers
Set
Symbol
Members
Natural numbers
N
1,2,3,…
Whole numbers
W
0,1,2,3,…
Integers
Z
…,−2,−1,0,1,2,…
Rational numbers
Q
anything expressible as qp with p,q∈Z, q=0
Real numbers
R
every point on the number line
Each set contains the one above it:
N⊂W⊂Z⊂Q⊂R
The irrational numbers are the reals that are not rational — 2, π, e. They fill in the gaps that Q leaves.
The field axioms
For all a,b,c∈R:
Axiom
Addition
Multiplication
Closure
a+b∈R
ab∈R
Commutative
a+b=b+a
ab=ba
Associative
(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)
(ab)c=a(bc)
Identity
a+0=a
a×1=a
Inverse
a+(−a)=0
a×a1=1, for a=0
and the one that links them, the distributive law:
a(b+c)=ab+ac
Exam questions name the axiom being used. In 3(x+4)=3x+12 the step is distributive; in 2+x=x+2 it is commutative; in x×1=x it is the multiplicative identity.
Closure
A set is closed under an operation if performing it on members of the set always lands you back inside the set.
Set
+
−
×
÷
N
yes
no
yes
no
Z
yes
yes
yes
no
Q
yes
yes
yes
yes (excluding division by 0)
R
yes
yes
yes
yes (excluding division by 0)
N fails under subtraction because 3−5=−2, which is not a natural number. Z fails under division because 3÷2=1.5, which is not an integer.
The irrationals are not closed under any of the four operations:
2+(−2)=02×2=2
Both results are rational, from irrational inputs.
Rational and irrational numbers
A number is rational exactly when its decimal expansion terminates or recurs.
0.75=430.3˙=310.4˙=94
To convert a recurring decimal, let x be the number, multiply by a power of 10 that shifts one full period, and subtract.
Express 0.1˙8˙ as a fraction.
x=0.181818…100x=18.181818…99x=18x=9918=112
An irrational number has a decimal expansion that never terminates and never settles into a repeating block.
Proving irrationality
The standard argument is by contradiction.
Prove that 2 is irrational.
Suppose, for contradiction, that 2 is rational. Then
2=qp
for integers p and q with no common factor — the fraction is in lowest terms.
Squaring and rearranging:
2=q2p2⇒p2=2q2
So p2 is even, and therefore p is even (an odd number squared is odd). Write p=2m:
(2m)2=2q2⇒4m2=2q2⇒q2=2m2
So q2 is even, and therefore q is even.
But now p and q are both even, so they share the factor 2 — contradicting the assumption that the fraction was in lowest terms.
The assumption must be false, so 2 is irrational. ■
Working with the axioms
Two results worth knowing, both proved the same way.
The sum of a rational and an irrational is always irrational.
Suppose r is rational and i is irrational, and suppose for contradiction that r+i=s is rational. Then
i=s−r
But Q is closed under subtraction, so s−r is rational — making i rational, which contradicts the assumption. Therefore r+i is irrational. ■
The sum of two irrationals can be either.
2+3 is irrational2+(−2)=0 is rational
So no general rule exists, and a question asking for one is asking you to notice that.