## Teaching irrational numbers – break it to me gently

Numbers generally emerged from the practical need to express measurement. From counting numbers to whole numbers, to the set of integers, and to the rational numbers, we have always been able to use numbers to express measures. Up to the set of rational numbers, mathematics is practical, numbers are useful and easy to make sense of. But what about the irrational numbers? You can tell by the name how it shook the rational mind of the early Greeks.

Unlike rationals that emerged out of practical need, irrational numbers emerged out of theoretical need of mathematics for logical consistency. It could therefore be a little hard for students to make sense of and hard for teachers to teach. Surds, $\pi$, and e are not only difficult to work with, they are also difficult to understand conceptually.

It is not surprising that some textbooks, teaching guides, and lesson plans uses the following stunts to introduce irrational numbers:

After discussing how terminating decimal numbers and repeating decimal numbers are rational, you can then announce that the NON-repeating NON-terminating decimal numbers are exactly the IRRATIONAL NUMBERS.

What’s wrong with this? Nothing, except that it doesn’t make sense to students. It assumes that students understand the real number system and that the set of real numbers can be divided into two sets – rational and irrational. But, students have yet to learn these.

Rational numbers are all numbers of the form  $\frac{p}{q}$ where p and q are integers and q $\neq$ 0. Irrational numbers are all the numbers that cannot be expressed in the form of $\frac{p}{q}$ where p and q are integers.
How would we convince a student that there is indeed a number that cannot be expressed as a quotient of two integers or that there is a number that cannot be divided by another number not equal to zero? It’s not a very good idea but even if we tell them that $\sqrt{2}$ is an irrational number, how do we show them that it fits the definition without resorting to indirect proof or proof of impossibility? What I am saying here is it is not pedagogically sound to start with definitions because definitions are already abstraction of the concept. I would say the same for all other mathematical concepts.