5.

Integers, Whole Numbers And Rational

Numbers
The set of natural numbers, ` , is the building block for most of the real number
system. But ` is inadequate for measuring and describing physical quantities, it
does not contain the additive identity 0, and it is not closed under subtraction and
division. In this section, we use ` to create the set of integers, the set of whole
numbers and the set of rational numbers. The latter set resolves most of the
shortcomings of ` .

We begin by giving a definition for the set of integers and a special subset referred
to as the whole numbers. Then we extend the ideas of divisor, multiple, prime
factorization, greatest common divisor and least common multiple to numbers in
these sets.

Definition 5.1: The set of integers, ] , is the subset of \ given by

] = {" , − 3, − 2, − 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, "}
The set of whole numbers, ] 0,+ , is the subset of ] given by
] 0,+ = {0, 1, 2, 3, "} = ` ∪ {0}

These sets can be visualized within the real number line as shown below.

... -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ...

Smaller Larger
The Integers ]
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...

Smaller Larger
The Whole Numbers ] 0,+

Notice that both ] and ] 0,+ contain both the additive identity 0 and the
multiplicative identity 1. You will be asked in the exercises to verify the
following:

Z1 The set of whole numbers, ] 0,+ , is closed

under both addition and multiplication.
Z2 The set of whole numbers is not closed
under subtraction or division.
Z3 The set of integers, ] , is closed under
addition, subtraction and multiplication.
Z4 The set of integers, ] , is not closed under
division.

From the standpoint of order, the integers ] are much different from the natural
numbers ` . There is a smallest element in ` ; namely 1. There is no smallest
element in ] . Notice that the set of whole numbers ] 0,+ does have a smallest
element; namely 0. None of the sets ` , ] 0,+ or ] contains a largest element.

From an algebraic standpoint, the set of integers ] is not so different from the set
of natural numbers ` . The new additional entries in ] are 0 and the additive
inverses of the entries in ` . As a result, we can extend the ideas of divisors,
multiples and prime factorizations to the nonzero elements in ] .

Definition 5.2: Let m, n ∈ ] . We say that m is a multiple of n if and only if there

is an integer k so that m = kn . We say that n is a divisor of m if and only if m is a
multiple of n.

Theorem 5.3: Let m, n ∈ ] so that m is a multiple of n. Then − m is a multiple of

n and − n is a divisor of m.
Proof: Let m, n ∈ ] . We say that m is a multiple of n if and only if there is an
integer k so that m = kn . k is an integer means − k is also an integer.

m = kn ⇒ m = (−k )(− n) . Hence m is a multiple of −n .

Then, by definition, −n is a divisor of m. „

Remark 5.4: Both -1 and 1 are divisors of every integer, 0 is a multiple of every
integer, and every integer is a divisor of 0.

Definition 5.5: Let a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 . The greatest common divisor of a

and b, denoted gcd(a, b) , is the largest integer that divides both a and b. The least
common multiple of a and b, denoted lcm ( a, b ) , is the smallest positive multiple
of both a and b.

Remark 5.6: We require that a, b ≠ 0 in the definition above since every number
is a divisor of 0. As a result there is no greatest common divisor of 0 and itself. In
addition, there is no positive multiple of 0, so the least common multiple of 0 and
b can not be defined for any integer b.

The result below allows us to use earlier results to find gcd(a, b) and lcm ( a, b )
when a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 .

Theorem 5.7: Let a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 . Then

gcd(a, b) = gcd ( − a, b ) = gcd ( a, −b ) = gcd ( − a, −b )
and
lcm ( a, b ) = lcm ( − a, b ) = lcm ( a, −b ) = lcm ( − a, −b )

Proof: Let c = gcd(a, b) . Then c is the largest integer that divides both a and b.
Any integer that divides a and b also divides − a and − b (see Theorem-5.3), and
vice versa. Hence, c is the largest integer that divides both a and b means c is also
the largest integer that divides both − a and b. Same argument holds for the
other cases. Hence,
gcd(a, b) = gcd ( − a, b ) = gcd ( a, −b ) = gcd ( − a, −b ) .

Similarly, any integer that is a multiple of a and b is also a multiple of

− a and − b (see Theorem-5.3), and vice versa. Hence, the smallest positive
integer that is a multiple of both a and b is same as the smallest positive integer
that is a multiple of − a and − b . Hence,
lcm ( a, b ) = lcm ( − a, b ) = lcm ( a, −b ) = lcm ( − a, −b ) . „
Example 5.8: Find gcd(−214,360) and lcm ( −214,360 ) .

Solution: From the theorem above and an earlier result,

gcd(−214,360) = gcd ( 214,360 )
and
gcd(214,360) lcm ( 214,360 ) = ( 214 )( 360 ) = 77040
We can use either prime factorization or the division algorithm to show
gcd ( 214,360 ) = 2 . Consequently, lcm ( 214,360 ) = 38520 . Therefore,
gcd(−214,360) = 2 and lcm ( −214,360 ) = 38520 .

We are now ready to discuss the set of rational numbers.

Definition 5.9: The set of rational numbers, _ , is given by

_ = {a / b a, b ∈ ] with b ≠ 0}

Notice that every integer m is a rational number since m = m /1 . Also, the set of
natural numbers, the set of whole numbers, the set of integers and the set of
rational numbers are ordered by set inclusion as shown below.
` ⊆ ] 0,+ ⊆ ] ⊆ _

The set of rational numbers _ has much more algebraic structure than any of ` ,
] 0,+ or ] . The proof of the following theorem is relegated to the exercises.

Theorem 5.10: The operations + and × satisfy the field axioms on _ . That is,
for every a, b, c ∈ _ ,
Name Addition Multiplication
Commutative a+b =b+a a×b = b×a
Property
Associative ( a + b) + c = a + (b + c ) ( a × b ) × c = a × (b × c )
Property
Distributive a × (b + c ) = a × b + a × c
Property
Identity a+0 = 0+a = a a × 1 = 1× a = a
Inverse There exists − a ∈ _ so that if a ≠ 0 there exists a −1 ∈ _
a + ( −a ) = ( −a ) + a = 0 so that a × a −1 = a −1 × a = 1

The order properties of _ is much more complicated than the order properties of
] . We know that the elements of ] are ordered as follows:
" < −3 < − 2 < − 1 < 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < "
There is no such ordering for _ . Also, it is not always easy to determine (by
inspection) whether one rational number is smaller or larger than another. For
example, it is not immediately obvious that
101123 42136
<
79734 33165
The following result can help determine the ordering of two rational numbers.

Theorem 5.11: Let a, b, c, d ∈ ] with b, d ≠ 0 .

ƒ a / b > 0 if and only if ab > 0 .
ƒ a / b < 0 if and only if ab < 0 .
ƒ If a / b < 0 and c / d > 0 then a / b < c / d .
ƒ If a / b > 0 and c / d > 0 then a / b < c / d if and only if ad < bc .
ƒ If a / b < 0 and c / d < 0 then a / b < c / d if and only if ad > bc .
ƒ a / b = c / d if and only if ad = bc .

Proof:
ƒ a / b > 0 implies that a and b have the same signs, i.e. they are both
positive or both negative. And this implies that ab > 0 .
Moreover, ab > 0 implies that a and b have the same signs, which means
a/b > 0.
Hence, a / b > 0 if and only if ab > 0 .

ƒ a / b < 0 means a and b have the opposite signs, i.e. one of them is positive
and the other is negative. Therefore, ab < 0 . Similarly, ab < 0 implies that
a/b < 0 .
ƒ Any negative number is less than any positive number. Hence, If a / b < 0
and c / d > 0 then a / b < c / d .
ƒ Suppose a / b > 0 and c / d > 0 . If a / b < c / d , then multiply both sides of
a d c d
the inequality with d / c (which is positive!); ⋅ < ⋅ = 1 . Hence,
b c d c
ad
< 1 . This implies that ad < bc .
bc
ad ad c c
If ad < bc , then < 1 . Since ⋅ < 1 ⋅ , we get a / b < c / d .
bc bc d d

a d c d
ƒ ⋅ > ⋅ =1
Suppose a / b < 0 and c / d < 0 . If a / b < c / d , then
b c d c
(since we multiply the inequality with a negative number, "<" becomes
ad
">"). So, > 1 . This implies that ad > bc .
bc
ad ad c c
If ad > bc , then >1. ⋅ < 1⋅ implies that a / b < c / d .
bc bc d d

a d c d ad
ƒ If a / b = c / d , then ⋅ = ⋅ = 1 . That is, = 1 . Hence, ad = bc .
b c d c bc
 ad a d a d c c
If ad = bc , then = 1 .That is, ⋅ = 1 . So ⋅ ⋅ = 1 ⋅ Hence,
bc b c b c d d
a/b = c/d . „

101123 42136
Example 5.12: Show that < .
79734 33165

101123 42136
Solution: The rational numbers and are both positive. Also,
79734 33165
(101123)( 33165) = 3353744295
and
( 79734 )( 42136 ) = 3359671824 .
Since 3359671824 > 3353744295 , we can see from property 4 of the theorem
above that
101123 42136
< .
79734 33165

You should be aware that it is possible to use long division to write any rational
number in decimal form. For example,
1 1 1 4 53
= 0.5 , = 0.25 , = 0.3 , = 0.307692 and = 0.407692307692
2 4 3 13 130
where the overbar in the last three decimal numbers indicates that the digits repeat
indefinitely. That is,
1
= 0.33333333333333"
3
and
4
= 0.307692307692307692307692
 
  
  
  
"
13
Notice that the decimal representations for the five rational numbers above either
terminate (end) or eventually repeat indefinitely. The result below states that this
is a defining characteristic of rational numbers.

Theorem 5.13: A number r ∈ \ is a rational number if and only if r has a

decimal representation that either terminates or eventually repeats indefinitely.

Unfortunately, if a rational number has a decimal representation that terminates,

then the number also has another decimal representation. This can be
demonstrated with some simple arithmetic. Note that 1/9 is given by the repeating
decimal
1
= .1111111111"
9
⎛1⎞
Also, 9 ⎜ ⎟ = 1 . So, 9 (.1111111111") = 1 . But we can see from long
⎝9⎠
multiplication that
.1111111111"
×9
.9999999999"
Consequently, .9 = 1 . Similarly,
.09 = .1 , .009 = .01 , .0009 = .001 , etc.
As a result,
.25 = .249 and .2 = .19

It is also much more complicated to visualize the rational numbers within the real
number line than it is to visualize the integers within the real number line. This is
because the rational numbers are nearly everywhere on the real line! We make this
idea precise in the definition and theorem given below.

Definition 5.14: A subset S of \ is said to be dense in \ if and only if for every

a, b ∈ \ with a < b there is an element c ∈ S so that a < c < b .

Remark 5.15: In lay terms, the statement above says that a dense subset of \ is
one that can be used to give arbitrarily close approximations of every number in
\ . We can see this by imagining that the number a referred to in the definition is
the real number we wish to approximate and b is a real number which is only
slightly larger than a. Then the requirement that c lies between a and b implies
that c is approximately a. The closeness of this approximation depends upon how
close b is chosen to a.

Theorem 5.16: _ is a dense subset of \ .

At one time, it was thought that all real numbers were rational numbers. In fact,
one story (which might be folk lore) states that the philosopher Hippasus
demonstrated that 2 was not a rational number while he was at sea with some of
his colleagues. When he told them of his discovery, they became enraged and
threw him overboard. We will see shortly that Hippasus was right!

Exercises:
1. Verify properties Z1 – Z4.
2. Let m, a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 and m > 0 . Show that
gcd ( ma, mb ) = m gcd ( a, b ) ; i.e. the greatest common divisor satisfies a
distributive property.
3. Let a, b, c ∈ ] with a, b, c ≠ 0 . Show that
gcd ( gcd(a, b), c ) = gcd ( a, gcd(b, c) ) ; i.e. the greatest common divisor
satisfies an associative property.
4. Let a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 . Show that gcd(a, b) = gcd ( b, a ) ; i.e. the
greatest common divisor satisfies a commutative property.
5. Let a, b ∈ ` with a, b ≠ 0 . Show that lcm( a, gcd( a, b)) = a and
gcd(a, lcm(a, b)) = a .
6. Let a ∈ ` with a ≠ 0 . Show that lcm(a, a) = a ; i.e. the least common
multiple is idempotent.
7. Let a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 . Show that lcm(a, b) = lcm ( b, a ) ; i.e. the least
common multiple satisfies a commutative property.
8. Let a, b, c ∈ ] with a, b, c ≠ 0 . Show that
lcm ( lcm(a, b), c ) = lcm ( a, lcm(b, c) ) ; i.e. the least common multiple
satisfies an associative property.
9. Let m, a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0, m > 0 . Show that
lcm ( ma, mb ) = mlcm ( a, b ) ; i.e. the least common multiple satisfies a
distributive property.
10. A colleague claims the probability is 1/3 that a randomly chosen rational
number (in reduced form) has an even denominator. Does this statement
make any sense?
11. Show that you can always find another rational number between any two
distinct rational numbers.
12. Prove Theorem 5.10 (i.e. show that _ satisfies all of the field axioms).
13. Although decimal representations for rational numbers must either
terminate or eventually repeat indefinitely, the length of the repeating
portion of a decimal representation can be very long and complicated. For
example, the number 13.46789134561780101343719842112 is a rational
number. Use long division to determine the repeating decimal expansion
for 2/29.

Solutions:

1. Z1: The set of whole numbers, ] 0,+ , is closed under both addition and
multiplication.
Let m, n ∈ ] 0, + . If m or n is 0, then mn = 0 ∈ ] 0,+ . Suppose neither m nor n is
zero. Then m, n ∈ ` . We know that ` is closed under multiplication, so
mn ∈ ` and ` ⊆ ] 0,+ ; mn ∈ ] 0,+ .
Hence ] 0,+ is closed under multiplication.

If m and n are both 0, then m + n = 0 ∈ ] 0,+ . If m is 0 and n is not, then

m + n = n ∈ ] 0,+ .
Suppose neither m nor n is zero. Then m, n ∈ ` . We know that ` is closed
under addition, so m + n ∈ ` and ` ⊆ ] 0,+ ; m + n ∈ ] 0,+ .
Hence ] 0,+ is closed under addition.
Z2: The set of whole numbers is not closed under subtraction or division.

It is enough to give an example to show that ] 0,+ is not closed under

subtraction or division.
2
2,5 ∈ ] 0,+ , however 2 − 5 = −3 ∉ ] 0, + and = 0.4 ∉ ] 0,+ .
5

Z3: The set of integers, ] , is closed under addition, subtraction and

multiplication.

Let m, n ∈ ] . If m, n ∈ ] 0, + , then m + n ∈ ] 0,+ ⊆ ] ; m + n ∈ ] .

If both m, n < 0 , then (−m), (−n) ∈ ] 0,+ , and hence (−m) + (− n) ∈ ] 0,+ ; i.e.
−(m + n) ∈ ] 0,+ . So m + n ∈ ] .
Suppose m < 0 and n ∈ ] 0,+ . If − m > n , then (−m) − n ∈ ] 0,+ , i.e.
−(m + n) ∈ ] 0,+ , hence m + n ∈ ] . If − m < n , then m + n ∈ ] 0,+ , hence
m + n∈] .
Thus, ] is closed under addition.

Let m, n ∈ ] . Then m, (−n) ∈ ] and m + (−n) = m − n ∈ ] (since ] is closed

under addition).
Hence, ] is closed under subtraction.

Let m, n ∈ ] . If m, n ∈ ] 0,+ , then m ⋅ n ∈ ] 0,+ ⊆ ] ; m ⋅ n ∈ ] .

If both m, n < 0 , then (−m), (−n) ∈ ] 0,+ , and hence (−m) ⋅ (−n) ∈ ] 0,+ ; i.e.
m ⋅ n ∈ ] 0,+ . So m ⋅ n ∈ ] .
Suppose m < 0 and n ∈ ] 0,+ . Then −m ∈ ] 0,+ and hence (−m) ⋅ n ∈ ] 0,+ , i.e.
−m ⋅ n ∈ ] 0,+ , hence −(−m ⋅ n) = m ⋅ n ∈ ] (since a number is in ] 0,+ implies the
negative of that number is in ] ).
Thus, ] is closed under multiplication.

Z4:The set of integers, ] , is not closed under division.

2
We know that 2,5∈ ] , but = 0.4 ∉ ] . Hence, ] is not closed under
5
division.

2. We showed before (Section 3, Exercise#12) that

gcd ( ma, mb ) = m gcd ( a, b ) if m, a, b ∈ `

Theorem 5.7 states that for a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 we have

gcd(a, b) = gcd ( − a, b ) = gcd ( a, −b ) = gcd ( − a, −b )

Let m, a, b ∈ ] with m, a, b ≠ 0 .
If m, a, b ∈ ` , then there is nothing to show.
Suppose a, b < 0 .
gcd(ma, mb) = gcd(− ma, −mb) = m gcd ( − a, −b ) = m gcd(a, b) (since
− ma > 0 and − mb > 0 ).

Suppose a < 0 and b > 0 .

gcd(ma, mb) = gcd(− ma, mb) = m gcd ( − a, b ) = m gcd(a, b) (since
− ma ∈ ` and mb ∈ ` ).

Hence, for m, a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 and m > 0 , gcd ( ma, mb ) = m gcd ( a, b ) .

3. Let a, b, c ∈ ] with a, b, c ≠ 0 .
If a, b, c ∈ ` , then we know that gcd ( gcd(a, b), c ) = gcd ( a, gcd(b, c) ) (see
Section 3, Exercise#13).
If not, then by using a similar argument to the previous exercise, we can get
the result.
If gcd(a, b) < 0 and c < 0 , then since − gcd(a, b) > 0 and − c > 0 , by using
the Exercise#13 and Theorem 5.7, we get;
gcd ( gcd(a, b), c ) = gcd ( − gcd(a, b), −c )
= gcd ( − a, − gcd(b, c ) ) = gcd ( a, gcd(b, c ) )
The other cases can be shown similarly.
Hence, gcd ( gcd(a, b), c ) = gcd ( a, gcd(b, c) ) for a, b, c ∈ ] with a, b, c ≠ 0 .

4. Let a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0 .
We showed before that for a, b ∈ ` , gcd(a, b) = gcd ( b, a ) (see Section 3,
Exercise#15).
Suppose a, b < 0 . Then by Theorem 5.7 we have;
gcd(a, b) = gcd(−a, −b) = gcd(−b, − a ) = gcd ( b, a ) (since −a, −b ∈ ` )
Suppose a < 0 and b > 0 . Then similarly,
gcd(a, b) = gcd(− a, b) = gcd(b, − a ) = gcd ( b, a ) .
Hence, gcd(a, b) = gcd ( b, a ) .

5. We know that if a, b ∈ ` then lcm(a, gcd(a, b)) = a and

gcd(a, lcm(a, b)) = a (see Section 3, Exercise#16).

6. Follows from #5.

7. For a, b ∈ ` , we know that lcm(a, b) = lcm ( b, a ) .

Suppose a, b < 0 . Then, again by theorem 5.7,
lcm(a, b) = lcm ( −a, −b ) = lcm(−b, − a) = lcm(b, a) (since − a, −b ∈ ` ).
Other cases follow similarly.
Hence, for a, b ∈ ] , lcm(a, b) = lcm ( b, a ) .

8. Let a, b, c ∈ ] with a, b, c ≠ 0 . Show that

lcm ( lcm(a, b), c ) = lcm ( a, lcm(b, c) )

If a, b, c ∈ ` , then we showed before that

lcm ( lcm(a, b), c ) = lcm ( a, lcm(b, c) ) (see Section 3, Exercise#19).
Suppose a, b, c < 0 . By Theorem 5.7, we get;
lcm ( lcm(a, b), c ) = lcm ( lcm(−a, −b), −c ) = lcm ( − a, lcm(−b, −c) )
= lcm ( a, lcm(b, c) )

The other cases follow with a similar argument.

Hence, for a, b, c ∈ ] with a, b, c ≠ 0 , lcm ( lcm(a, b), c ) = lcm ( a, lcm(b, c) ) .

9. Let m, a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0, m > 0 . Show that lcm ( ma, mb ) = mlcm ( a, b )

If a, b ∈ ` , then by Exercise #20 in Section 3, we know that
lcm ( ma, mb ) = mlcm ( a, b ) .
Suppose a, b < 0 . Then
lcm ( ma, mb ) = lcm ( −ma, − mb ) = mlcm ( − a, −b ) = mlcm ( a, b ) .
You can show the other cases similarly.
Hence, for m, a, b ∈ ] with a, b ≠ 0, m > 0 , lcm ( ma, mb ) = mlcm ( a, b ) .

10. This problem is intended for extended exploration and discussion. There is
no simple solution.
 a c a c
11.Let , be any two positive rational numbers such that < . We know
b d b d
a ad c cb ad + cb
that = , and = . It is important to observe that ad < < cb .
b bd d db 2
ad + cb
2 ad cb
Then the rational number is a number between and . Hence,
bd bd db
ad + cb
a c
< c < .
b bd d
We can conclude with a similar argument that same holds for negative rational
numbers.
Hence, there is always a rational number between any two rational numbers.

m p r
12. Let m, n, p, q, r , s ∈ ], n, q, s ≠ 0 , such that a = , b = and c = . Then
n q s
a, b, c ∈ _ .
i) Commutative Property:

m p mq + np np + mq np mq p m
a+b = + = = = + = + = b + a (notice that
n q nq qn qn qn q n
np, mq, nq ∈ ] and ] is commutative with respect to both addition and
multiplication, i.e. mq + np = np + mq and np = pn .)

m p mp pm p m
a ⋅b = ⋅ = = = ⋅ = b ⋅ a (since ] is commutative with
n q nq qn q n
respective to multiplication).

Hence, _ has commutative property both for addition and multiplication.

ii) Associative Property:

It is important to notice that m, n, p, q, r , s ∈ ] , i.e. we can use the associative
property of ] with respect to addition and multiplication and the distributive
property.
 ⎛ m p ⎞ r ⎛ mq + np ⎞ r mq + np r (mq + np ) s + r (nq )
( a + b) + c = ⎜ + ⎟ + = ⎜ ⎟+ = + =
⎝ n q ⎠ s ⎝ nq ⎠ s nq s (nq ) s
mqs + nps + rnq mqs + ( ps + rq)n mqs ( ps + rq )n
= = = +
nqs n(qs ) n(qs ) n(qs )
m ⎛ ps + rq ⎞ m ⎛ ps rq ⎞ m ⎛ p r ⎞
= +⎜ ⎟ = +⎜ + ⎟ = +⎜ + ⎟
n ⎝ qs ⎠ n ⎝ qs qs ⎠ n ⎝ q s ⎠
= a + (b + c)

⎛ m p ⎞ r ⎛ mp ⎞ r mp r mpr m( pr )
( a ⋅ b) ⋅ c = ⎜ ⋅ ⎟ ⋅ = ⎜ ⎟⋅ = ⋅ = =
⎝ n q ⎠ s ⎝ nq ⎠ s nq s nqs n(qs )
m ⎛ pr ⎞ m ⎛ p r ⎞
= ⋅⎜ ⎟ = ⋅⎜ ⋅ ⎟
n ⎝ qs ⎠ n ⎝ q s ⎠
= a ⋅ (b ⋅ c)

Hence, _ has associative property both for addition and multiplication.

iii) Distributive Property:

m ⎛ p r ⎞ m ⎛ ps + qr ⎞ m ps + qr m( ps + qr )
a ⋅ (b + c) = ⋅⎜ + ⎟ = ⋅⎜ ⎟= ⋅ =
n ⎝ q s ⎠ n ⎝ qs ⎠ n qs n(qs )
mps + mqr mps mqr mp mr ⎛ m p ⎞ ⎛ m r ⎞
= = + = + = ⎜ ⋅ ⎟+⎜ ⋅ ⎟
nqs nqs nqs nq ns ⎝ n q ⎠ ⎝ n s ⎠
= a ⋅b + a ⋅c

iv) Identity element:

0
Notice that for any non-zero integer n , 0 = . Since for m ∈ ], m + 0 = m ,
n

m 0 m+0 m
a+0 = + = = = a .(By commutative property, 0 + a = a + 0 = a .)
n n n n
Hence, 0 is the identity element of _ with respect to addition.
1 m 1 m ⋅1 m
We also know that 1 = and for m ∈ ], m ⋅1 = m . a ⋅1 = ⋅ = = =a
1 n 1 n ⋅1 n
(By the commutative property with respect to multiplication, 1.a = a.1 = a .)
Hence, 1 is the identity element of _ with respect to multiplication.
v) Inverse element:

We know that for m ∈ ] , there exists − m ∈ ] such that m + (−m) = 0 .Let

−m
= − a; − a ∈ _ .Then,
n
m − m m + ( − m) 0
a + (−a) = + = = = 0.
n n n n
Hence, for every a ∈ _ , there exists −a ∈ _ such that a + (−a) = (−a ) + a = 0 .

m
Let a be a non-zero element of _ , i.e. a = , where m, n ∈ ], m ≠ 0, n ≠ 0 .
n

m n mn n
Notice that ⋅ = = 1 . Let a −1 = ; a −1 ∈ _ . Then a ⋅ a −1 = a −1 ⋅ a = 1 .
n m nm m

Hence, for every a ∈ _ , there exists a −1 ∈ _ such that a ⋅ a −1 = a −1 ⋅ a = 1 .

That is, every rational number has additive inverse, and every non-zero
rational number has multiplicative inverse.

2
13. = 0.06896551724137931034482758620 (The division is left as an
29
exercise).