I believe a theorem states that every rational number is either a repeating or terminal decimal. Therefore, if it doesn't repeat, it must be irrational.
2.202002000200002...
There is a pattern there so part of me wants to say yes. But there is technically no repeat or termination so a bigger part of me wants to say no.
I am making answer sheets for my students and initially I was going to say no, this is not a rational number due to the fact there is no repeat or termination of the decimal. But looking at the worksheet, it gives no options for the students to label a number as irrational. Just W, I or Q.
Typically the directions for these sheets are very specific, so that got me thinking that this must be a rational number and that the obvious pattern must allow it to be translated into a fraction somehow, but I am not sure how I would do that. I know how to turn repeating and terminating decimals into fractions but not this if it is in fact possible.
I know it is probably a basic question but I'm at a loss here.
Well, this will probably be meddling in your affairs, but just in case. If W, I and Q are used as labels and are written in thin (regular) font, I guess it's OK. If, however, they denote sets of numbers and are written in thick font like this: , then the universal notation for integers is . Also, Wikipedia claims that "whole number" is a term with inconsistent definitions. It is better to say "natural numbers" and denote their set by .
In the instructions it says
W = whole
I = integers
and Q = Rational
In the book they also define Whole numbers as {0, 1, 2, 3...}
Natural as {1, 2, 3, 4...}
and Rational as any number that can be written in A over B form.
So I am going based off of the information this company gave me.
Hello, Jman115!
There is a pattern there so part of me wants to say yes.
But there is technically no repeat or termination
. . so a bigger part of me wants to say no.
You are right . . . there is a pattern.
. . But it does not have a repeating cycle.
As Jman115 suggested, it must be irrational.
We have: .
The exponents are Triangular Numbers.
. . That is: .
The series is neither arithmetic nor geometric, nor a combination thereof.
I have found no way to evaluate it.
It can be written as a recurrence: .
. . but this doesn't help either . . .