This is the big one.
'Prove that is irrational' is a CBSE board exam staple.
The proof has a clear, logical structure:
Every step must be explicitly justified.
| Focus Area | What the Examiner Looks For |
|---|---|
| Terminology | Specific mathematical phrases |
| Citations | Reference to Theorem 1.3 |
Let us make sure you can produce this proof fluently and correctly.
Let us see if you can produce the entire proof without prompting. This is exactly what the board exam requires.
You may use Theorem 1 without proof: If is prime and divides , then divides .
Write the complete proof that is irrational.
Tip: Remember to structure your argument clearly and justify each step as if you were answering a board exam question.
Here is the proof with annotations showing what the examiner looks for.
[Earns marks: clear assumption]
"Assume, for contradiction, that is rational."
"Let , where are positive integers, , and is in simplest form ( and are co-prime, )."
[Earns marks: correct algebra]
"Squaring both sides: ."
"So . ...(i)"
[Earns marks: Theorem 1 with primality cited]
From (i), , so 2 divides .
Since 2 is prime and 2 divides , by Theorem 1, 2 divides .
[Earns marks: correct substitution]
"Let for some positive integer ."
"Substituting in (i): ."
⚠️ Note: , NOT . This is the most common error.
"So ."
[Earns marks: second application]
Recall from our last step that . This mathematically proves that 2 divides .
Since 2 is prime, by Theorem 1, 2 divides .
2 divides both and , so 2 is a common factor...
...contradicting .
Hence is irrational.
Let us build the proof one step at a time.
This is your chance to practice the flow and logic we just reviewed.
Assume is rational. Let in simplest form, where and are co-prime integers.
Reminder: Each step must be explicitly justified to earn full marks from the examiner.
Fill in all seven blanks.
Let's fill in BLANK 1.
We start with the assumption: . To eliminate the square root, we square both sides:
Now, to clear the fraction, we multiply both sides by :
BLANK 2: Interpreting the equation.
From , we can see that is equal to times an integer ().
This means that 2 divides .
In other words, must be an even number.
BLANK 3: To use Theorem 1, we must satisfy two specific conditions:
Since both are true, by Theorem 1, 2 divides .
BLANK 4: Since we just proved 2 divides , we can write as a multiple of 2:
Now, let's substitute this back into our earlier equation, :
When we square , we must square both the coefficient and the variable:
So, our equation becomes: .
BLANK 5: Divide by 2: .
BLANK 6: From : 2 divides . Since 2 is prime, by Theorem 1, 2 divides .
BLANK 7: 2 divides (from BLANK 3) and 2 divides (from BLANK 6). So 2 is a common factor of and .
But we assumed and are co-prime (HCF = 1). Having a common factor of 2 contradicts this.
Hence is irrational.
You've just proved that is irrational. That's a significant achievement!
But here's the thing — the real test of whether you truly understand the proof isn't whether you can repeat it.
It's whether you can adapt it to a different prime without just mechanically replacing numbers.
Your Task: Let's see if you can write the complete proof for and articulate what changes versus what stays the same.
Write the complete proof that is irrational.
After completing the proof, identify and state:
The proof is exactly the proof with '2' replaced by '3'.
Let us write it out and compare.
By comparing the two, you will see that the logic of Theorem 1 and the substitution steps remain perfectly consistent.
proof:
Assume (simplest form).
Square: .
So divides , by Theorem 1, divides .
proof:
Assume (simplest form).
Square: .
So divides , by Theorem 1, divides .
Case:
Let .
Then , so .
Thus, divides .
Case:
Let .
Then , so .
Thus, divides .
In both cases, we reach a contradiction.
Since our initial assumption (that the number is rational) leads to a logical impossibility, the assumption must be wrong. Therefore, and are irrational.
See the pattern? The numbers in bold are the only things that change:
Everything else — the assumption, the squaring, the two applications of Theorem 1, the substitution, the contradiction — is identical.
This is why mathematicians write the general proof with '' instead of a specific number: it handles ALL primes at once.
Memorise the template with '', and you can handle any prime the board exam throws at you.