You have proved and are irrational.
You can see the template.
Now we formalise it for any prime and, just as importantly, figure out where the template hits its limits.
| Item | Focus |
|---|---|
| General Case | Any prime |
| The Boundary | Where the proof fails |
Not every number under the square root is prime, and the board exam does ask about:
You need to know what to do in those cases.
You've proved is irrational. You've proved is irrational. You've seen the template in action.
Now comes the real challenge:
Understanding the limits of a proof is just as important as knowing the proof itself.
Theorem 1: If is a prime and , then .
This theorem is your key tool — but remember, it only works when is prime.
(a) Write the general proof that is irrational for any prime .
(b) Explain why the same template cannot be used directly for . What approach would you use instead?
Let be any prime number. Assume is rational. Let , where and are positive integers, , .
Square both sides: , so ...(i)
From (i): divides . Since is prime, by Theorem 1, divides .
Let for some positive integer .
Substitute in (i): . Divide by : .
So divides . Since is prime, by Theorem 1, divides .
divides and divides , contradicting .
Hence is irrational.
. It is not prime, so the template does not apply directly.
The cleanest approach: simplify the square root first.
Now:
By the property 'non-zero rational irrational = irrational' (this is Theorem 8 from CL-11), is irrational.
Hence is irrational.
This approach works for many non-prime radicands: factor out perfect squares, reduce to , then use the closure property.
You've already proved that and are irrational. You've seen the pattern — now it's time to write the general proof that works for any prime .
The general proof uses:
Let's see if you can write the complete proof without mixing up the variables.
Write the complete general proof that is irrational for any prime .
Use the variables as specified:
Write out all the steps, from the assumption to the contradiction.
Here is the proof with careful variable management. Notice how each variable has a clear role.
Variables:
Let be any prime number. To prove is irrational, we begin by assuming the opposite.
The Assumption: Assume , where:
Step 1: Squaring and Rearranging
Square both sides of the equation:
Rearrange to isolate :
Step 2: Applying Theorem 1
From Equation (i), we see that divides .
Since is a prime number, we apply Theorem 1:
Let . ( is a NEW variable — not , not , not .)
Substitute in (i): .
Divide by : .
From this: . [ is prime] by Theorem 1, .
So and .
But means no common factor .
Contradiction. Hence is irrational.
You've now seen how the template works beautifully for proving and are irrational — and you understand the general pattern for any prime .
But here's the thing: CBSE doesn't only ask about primes.
You'll see questions about:
Numbers that are not prime.
So you need to know: When does the template apply directly, and when do you need a different approach?
For each of the following, state whether the direct template applies and, if not, how you would prove irrationality:
7 is prime. The template applies directly.
Standard proof: assume (simplest form), square to get , apply Theorem 1 twice, reach contradiction.
(b) : . Not prime.
Simplify: .
Since is irrational (proved by our template) and 2 is a non-zero rational, the product is irrational.
The Property: 'non-zero rational irrational = irrational' (Theorem 8).
.
Notice that is not prime, so just like we saw with and , we need to be careful with how we apply our logic.
Approach 1: Using Divisibility
Suppose we assume is rational, which leads to the equation:
Since divides both and , we have a contradiction.
Approach 2: Decomposition
We can also use the properties of irrational numbers we already know:
If were rational, then the ratio would have to be rational (since the ratio of two rationals is rational).
However, , and we already know that is irrational. This is a contradiction.
Notice something different here: .
9 is not prime. And more importantly, , which is clearly a rational number!
Let's see what happens if we try to force this into our irrationality template:
Calculating the ratio: .
No contradiction! The algebra just confirms that .
This is exactly what should happen: the template should fail for perfect squares because their square roots are actually rational. The logic is consistent!