Assume there is a smallest rational integer that has the following form: a/b
Then observe that we can define a/(b+1), which is strictly less than a/b because its divisor is bigger and is rational because it is the product of two numbers. Due to the contradiction created by our original claims that a/b is the smallest rational number that is possible, we might conclude that there is no such thing as the smallest rational number.
There can therefore be no smallest rational number because we may always define a smaller rational number than the one we now possess.
<h3>What is Rational number ?</h3>
Any number that can be expressed as a ratio is considered reasonable. It is therefore possible to represent it as a fraction when the numerator and denominator are both full numbers.
Learn more about Rational number here:
brainly.com/question/12088221
#SPJ4
Answer:
His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. ... In reaction, a thrusting force is produced in the opposite direction.
Explanation:
The answer to that probably would be C excuse me if I am wrong.
Answer:
Force = 150 Newton.
Explanation:
Given the following data;
Mass = 60kg
Acceleration = 2.5m/s²
To find the force;
Force = mass * acceleration
Force = 60 * 2.5
Force = 150 Newton.
Therefore, the force required to accelerate this mass is 150 Newton.
