You can find counterexamples to disprove this claim. We have positive integers that are perfect square numbers; when we take the square root of those numbers, we get an integer.
For example, the square root of 1 is 1, which is an integer. So if y = 1, then the denominator becomes an integer and thus we get a quotient of two integers (since x is also defined to be an integer), the definition of a rational number.
Example: x = 2, y = 1 ends up with 
which is rational. This goes against the claim that 
is always irrational for positive integers x and y.
Any integer y that is a perfect square will work to disprove this claim, e.g. y = 1, y = 4, y= 9, y = 16. So it is not always irrational.
Me sure ok what vtofneongorco
Can't without a picture :/
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
To solve this, we are going to make an age table:
Age Now Age 10 years ago
Tanya
Elliot
Filling the in the Age Now column comes from the first sentence. If Elliot is 2 times Tanya's age and we don't know Tanya's age, then Tanya's age is x and Elliot's age is 2x:
Age Now Age 10 years ago
Tanya x
Elliot 2x
Filling in the Age 10 years ago column simply requires that we take their ages in the Age Now column and subtract 10 from each age:
Age Now Age 10 years ago
Tanya x x - 10
Elliot 2x 2x - 10
Since the question is How old is Elliot now based on the fact that 10 years ago....blah, blah, blah, we are using the ages in the 10 years ago column to write our equation. It says:
10 years ago, Elliot was 4 times as old as Tanya. Translated into mathspeak:
2x - 10 = 4(x - 10) and
2x - 10 = 4x - 40 and
-2x = -30 so
x = 15. That means that Elliot is 30 and Tanya is 15
P=2(l+w)
Substitute width plus 3 for length
Remember order of operations: multiply before adding
86=2((w+3) + w)
86=2w+6+2w
86=4w+6
80=4w
20=w
23=w+3=l
Check the answer
86=2((w+3) + w)
86=2((20+3)+20
86=2(23+20)
86=46+40
86=86
