Is there a rational number between any two irrationals? Suppose $i_1$ and $i_2$ are distinct irrational numbers with $i_1 < i_2$.  Is it necessarily the case that there is a rational number $r$ in the interval $[i_1, i_2]$?  How would you construct such a rational number?
[I posted this only so that the useful answers at https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/414036/rationals-and-irrationals-on-the-real-number-line/414048#414048 could be merged here before that question was deleted.]
 A: Let $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$, $x\neq y$. Without loss of generality, suppose $x<y$. Then there exists a positive $z$ such that $y-x=z$.  
By Archimedes' axiom, there exists a natural number $n$ such that
$$n > \dfrac{1}{z}$$
$$nz > 1$$
$$ny - nx > 1$$
So there exists an integer $m$ such that
$$nx < m < ny$$
$$x < \frac{m}{n} < y$$
i.e. $m/n$ is a rational number between $x$ and $y$. 
Since $x$ and $y$ can be any real numbers, in particular they can be irrationals.
A: Be $a$ and $b$ two irrational numbers, with $a<b$. Since $a<b$, we have $b-a>0$. Now there are rational numbers arbitrary close to $0$, and therefore there's a rational number $q<b-a$. Now consider the set $M=\{qn: n\in \mathbb{Z}\}$. Now be $q_l$ the largest element of $M$ less than $a$, and $q_r$ the smallest element of $M$ greater than $b$. Clearly $q_r-q_l > b-a$. However, if there's no rational number between $a$ and $b$, then there's especially no element of $M$ between $a$ and $b$, because all elements of $M$ are rational. But then $q_r$ is the element of $M$ following $q_l$, that is, $q_r-q_l = q$. But by construction, $q<b-a$, so we have $b-a < q_l-q_r = q < b-a$ which is a contradiction. Therefore there's at least one element of $M$, which is a rational number, in between $a$ and $b$.
A: Let $a$ and $b$ be distinct irrationals; we lose no generality to suppose $a<b$.  Assume they have equal integer parts, since otherwise there is an integer between them and the question is trivial. They have infinite decimal expansions, $.a_1a_2a_3\ldots$ and $.b_1b_2b_3\ldots$.  These cannot agree in every position since otherwise $a=b$.  So say they agree up to the $n-1$th position and differ at the $n$th.  Then $$ x= \;.b_1b_2b_3\ldots b_n 0000000\ldots$$
is a rational number strictly between $a$ and $b$:
$$\begin{align}
a &= \;.a_1a_2\ldots a_{n-1}a_n\ldots \\& <\; .a_2a_2\ldots a_{n-1}b_n000\ldots &= x
\end{align}$$
because $a_n < b_n$, and 
$$\begin{align}
x & = \;.b_1b_2b_3\ldots b_n 0000000\ldots \\ & < \;.b_1b_2b_3\ldots b_nb_{n+1}\ldots & = b
\end{align}$$
because not all of $b_{n+1}, b_{n+2}, \ldots$ can be zero.
For example, there is a rational number betwen $\sqrt2 = 1.4142\ldots$ and $\sqrt3 -\frac14 = 1.482\ldots$; this method produces the rational number $1.48000\ldots = \frac{37}{25}$.  You can of course do the same thing in base 2; then you get $x = 1._20111000\ldots = \frac{23}{16}$, which also works.
It would also be fairly easy to produce a similar argument based on the continued fraction expansions of $a$ and $b$, but I think this is simpler.
A: We can construct one explicitly. Assume $0\lt a \lt b$. Let $n= \max(2,\lceil \frac 2{b-a}\rceil)$. Then let $m=\lceil na \rceil$ and $a \lt \frac m n \lt b$
A: You can apply an "argument from authority" here :). As we all know, Dedekind constructed a one-to-one correspondence between the real numbers and certain sets of rational numbers, which he called "cuts". We all accept that Dedekind's construction of the real numbers is mathematically flawless. By the way these cuts are constructed (see his 1872 paper), if there would be two irrational numbers without a rational number in between, then these two irrational numbers would correspond to the same Dedekind Cut. That would imply that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the real numbers and his cuts, hence Dedekind's construction of the reals would be incorrect (--> contradiction). 
