Question
Prove that is irrational.
Solution — Step by Step
We use proof by contradiction: assume that IS rational, and show this leads to an impossibility.
If is rational, it can be written as:
where and are integers, , and is in its lowest terms (meaning and have no common factors — their HCF is 1).
Squaring both sides:
This tells us is even (it equals 2 times something). If is even, then itself must be even. (Because if were odd, would be odd — odd × odd = odd.)
So we can write for some integer .
Substitute into :
Now is even, which means is also even.
We’ve shown that both and are even. This means they share a common factor of 2.
But we assumed at the start that is in its lowest terms — meaning and have no common factors. Having both be even contradicts this assumption.
We have a contradiction.
Our assumption that is rational led to a contradiction. Therefore, our assumption is false.
Hence, is irrational.
Why This Works
This style of proof is called Reductio Ad Absurdum (reduction to absurdity) — one of the most elegant tools in mathematics. We don’t try to show something directly; instead, we show that the opposite is impossible.
The key insight is the relationship between even squares and even numbers: if is even, then must be even. This follows because even numbers have 2 as a prime factor, and in , that factor of 2 must come from itself (prime factors of a square are just doubled powers of the prime factors of the original).
This exact proof — with being irrational — appears in CBSE Class 10 (Number Systems) and is a 3-mark question. The proof structure works for , , and any where is prime. For , you’d show both and are divisible by 6, or use the fact that and track divisibility by 2 and 3 separately.
Alternative — Why Can’t We Just Use Decimals?
You might think: ”, and this non-terminating non-repeating decimal proves it’s irrational.” That’s true, but it’s circular — we’d need to prove the decimal is indeed non-terminating and non-repeating, which requires essentially the same logic. The algebraic proof above is cleaner and more rigorous.
Common Mistake
The most common error in this proof is forgetting to state that is in lowest terms at the beginning. Without this assumption, the contradiction at Step 4 doesn’t work — of course two integers can share factors in general. The assumption of lowest terms is what makes the contradiction powerful. CBSE marks are deducted if this crucial starting condition is omitted.