The Diagonal of a Square Has No Exact Decimal
Learn to use the Baudhayana-Pythagoras theorem to find a missing side, derive the diagonal of a square as a times root 2, justify the theorem by rearranging squares, and see why root 2 can never be written exactly.
Why can the diagonal of a square never be written exactly as a decimal?
Because it involves , and has a decimal that never ends and never repeats. A square of side has a diagonal of exactly — a length you can draw perfectly but never write down in full.
That is a genuinely strange fact, and this chapter earns it. This page covers everything in the CBSE Class 8 Mathematics chapter's first part: the theorem and missing sides, the diagonal of a square, the geometric justification, and why is irrational.
That is a genuinely strange fact, and this chapter earns it. This page covers everything in the CBSE Class 8 Mathematics chapter's first part: the theorem and missing sides, the diagonal of a square, the geometric justification, and why is irrational.
Formula
How do you use the theorem to find a missing side?
The Baudhayana-Pythagoras theorem states that in a right-angled triangle, the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides:
where is the hypotenuse — the side opposite the right angle, and always the longest.
Finding the hypotenuse — add the squares. Legs of cm and cm:
Finding a leg — subtract. Hypotenuse cm and one leg cm:
Another: hypotenuse cm, one leg cm:
Whether to add or subtract is decided by what is missing, so identify the hypotenuse before touching the arithmetic — looking for it means adding, looking for a leg means subtracting.
The size check confirms every answer: the hypotenuse must exceed both legs. So cm against legs of and is right, while a "hypotenuse" shorter than a leg is impossible — which is exactly what catches an accidental addition where subtraction was needed.
where is the hypotenuse — the side opposite the right angle, and always the longest.
Finding the hypotenuse — add the squares. Legs of cm and cm:
Finding a leg — subtract. Hypotenuse cm and one leg cm:
Another: hypotenuse cm, one leg cm:
Whether to add or subtract is decided by what is missing, so identify the hypotenuse before touching the arithmetic — looking for it means adding, looking for a leg means subtracting.
The size check confirms every answer: the hypotenuse must exceed both legs. So cm against legs of and is right, while a "hypotenuse" shorter than a leg is impossible — which is exactly what catches an accidental addition where subtraction was needed.
Why is the diagonal of a square its side times root 2?
Because a diagonal splits a square into two isosceles right-angled triangles, whose two legs are equal.
Take a square of side . Its diagonal is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with both legs equal to :
So the diagonal of any square is its side multiplied by , whatever the size.
Worked examples, taking :
- Side cm gives a diagonal of cm
- Side cm gives cm
- Side cm gives cm
Running it backwards, a square with a diagonal of cm has side
The angles are fixed too. Since the two legs are equal, the two acute angles are equal, and being a right triangle they share the remaining :
A folded square sheet of paper, creased corner to corner, produces exactly this triangle.
The result is worth recognising instantly, because it appears throughout later geometry. The ratio of a square's diagonal to its side is always — it does not depend on the square's size, which is why turns up so often.
Take a square of side . Its diagonal is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with both legs equal to :
So the diagonal of any square is its side multiplied by , whatever the size.
Worked examples, taking :
- Side cm gives a diagonal of cm
- Side cm gives cm
- Side cm gives cm
Running it backwards, a square with a diagonal of cm has side
The angles are fixed too. Since the two legs are equal, the two acute angles are equal, and being a right triangle they share the remaining :
A folded square sheet of paper, creased corner to corner, produces exactly this triangle.
The result is worth recognising instantly, because it appears throughout later geometry. The ratio of a square's diagonal to its side is always — it does not depend on the square's size, which is why turns up so often.
How can you justify the theorem by rearranging squares?
By showing that the squares drawn on the two shorter sides can be cut up and reassembled into the square on the hypotenuse.
The doubling argument, for an isosceles right triangle. Take a square of side , so its area is . Draw the square on its diagonal.
The original square's two diagonals cut it into four equal triangles. The square built on one diagonal is made of eight such triangles — so its area is exactly double:
Since that area is 2, its side must be — which is the theorem for this triangle, since .
The halving argument. Run the same picture backwards. A square of area cut along both its diagonals gives four triangles, and two of them reassemble into a square of area — so the square on the diagonal is twice the original, once again.
The combining argument, in general. For a right triangle with legs and , draw squares of area and on the two legs. Those two squares can be cut and fitted together to fill exactly the square of area on the hypotenuse, with no gap and nothing left over. That is what says in pictures.
Checking with the triangle: squares of and unit tiles together make tiles, which is precisely the square on the side of length 5.
The point of the geometric version is what the algebra hides. The theorem is a statement about areas, not about lengths — the squares on the two legs literally hold as much surface as the square on the hypotenuse, which is why it can be demonstrated with scissors and paper rather than calculation.
The doubling argument, for an isosceles right triangle. Take a square of side , so its area is . Draw the square on its diagonal.
The original square's two diagonals cut it into four equal triangles. The square built on one diagonal is made of eight such triangles — so its area is exactly double:
Since that area is 2, its side must be — which is the theorem for this triangle, since .
The halving argument. Run the same picture backwards. A square of area cut along both its diagonals gives four triangles, and two of them reassemble into a square of area — so the square on the diagonal is twice the original, once again.
The combining argument, in general. For a right triangle with legs and , draw squares of area and on the two legs. Those two squares can be cut and fitted together to fill exactly the square of area on the hypotenuse, with no gap and nothing left over. That is what says in pictures.
Checking with the triangle: squares of and unit tiles together make tiles, which is precisely the square on the side of length 5.
The point of the geometric version is what the algebra hides. The theorem is a statement about areas, not about lengths — the squares on the two legs literally hold as much surface as the square on the hypotenuse, which is why it can be demonstrated with scissors and paper rather than calculation.
Why does root 2 lie between 1.414 and 1.415, and never end?
Because squaring those two decimals brackets the number 2 from both sides.
Since , it follows that
Narrowing further: and , so lies between and . The squeezing can be continued for ever, and it never closes onto an exact value.
Why it cannot be a fraction. Suppose could be written as in lowest terms, with and positive integers having no common factor. Then
So is even, which forces to be even, since the square of an odd number is odd. Write :
Now is even too, so is also even. But then and share a factor of 2 — contradicting "lowest terms".
No such fraction can exist, so is irrational. And since every terminating or recurring decimal can be written as a fraction, can be neither.
The distinction worth holding is between drawing and writing. The diagonal of a unit square is a perfectly definite, finite length you can construct with a ruler — it simply has no exact decimal or fractional name, which is a limitation of our number notation rather than of the length.
Since , it follows that
Narrowing further: and , so lies between and . The squeezing can be continued for ever, and it never closes onto an exact value.
Why it cannot be a fraction. Suppose could be written as in lowest terms, with and positive integers having no common factor. Then
So is even, which forces to be even, since the square of an odd number is odd. Write :
Now is even too, so is also even. But then and share a factor of 2 — contradicting "lowest terms".
No such fraction can exist, so is irrational. And since every terminating or recurring decimal can be written as a fraction, can be neither.
The distinction worth holding is between drawing and writing. The diagonal of a unit square is a perfectly definite, finite length you can construct with a ruler — it simply has no exact decimal or fractional name, which is a limitation of our number notation rather than of the length.
Exam tip
Exam tip: naming the hypotenuse before you calculate
Theorem questions are short, and nearly every lost mark is adding where subtraction was needed.
Write one line first: the hypotenuse is the side opposite the right angle, and identify it. Then add the squares if the hypotenuse is missing, subtract if a leg is missing.
Show the squares as numbers before the square root — , then . Both lines are marked.
Check the size: the hypotenuse must exceed both legs.
For a square's diagonal, quote and use only at the final step, keeping the surd form in the working.
And when asked why is irrational, give the contradiction: assume lowest terms, show both and must be even, and state that this contradicts the assumption.
Write one line first: the hypotenuse is the side opposite the right angle, and identify it. Then add the squares if the hypotenuse is missing, subtract if a leg is missing.
Show the squares as numbers before the square root — , then . Both lines are marked.
Check the size: the hypotenuse must exceed both legs.
For a square's diagonal, quote and use only at the final step, keeping the surd form in the working.
And when asked why is irrational, give the contradiction: assume lowest terms, show both and must be even, and state that this contradicts the assumption.
Did you know
Why does a length you can draw have no exact decimal?
Because decimals and fractions can only name some of the points on a line.
Draw a square of side 1 cm and its diagonal exists immediately, with a perfectly definite length. Set a compass to that length and it can be transferred anywhere. Nothing about it is vague.
What fails is the naming. Our notation builds numbers from tenths, hundredths and thousandths, and no combination of those ever lands exactly on this point. So is not an approximation of something — it is the exact length, and is the approximation of it.
Draw a square of side 1 cm and its diagonal exists immediately, with a perfectly definite length. Set a compass to that length and it can be transferred anywhere. Nothing about it is vague.
What fails is the naming. Our notation builds numbers from tenths, hundredths and thousandths, and no combination of those ever lands exactly on this point. So is not an approximation of something — it is the exact length, and is the approximation of it.
Key takeaways
The theorem and root 2: quick revision
- in a right-angled triangle, where is the hypotenuse opposite the right angle and the longest side.
- Add the squares to find the hypotenuse, subtract to find a leg — legs of 6 and 8 give 10, and hypotenuse 13 with leg 5 gives 12.
- A square of side has diagonal , since , and its acute angles are each.
- The geometric justification is about areas: the square on the diagonal of a unit square holds eight of the same triangles against the original's four, so its area is 2 and its side .
- and , so .
- is irrational: assuming in lowest terms forces both and to be even, a contradiction — so it has no exact decimal or fraction.
You will remember all of this far better after answering five questions on it than after reading it twice.
- Add the squares to find the hypotenuse, subtract to find a leg — legs of 6 and 8 give 10, and hypotenuse 13 with leg 5 gives 12.
- A square of side has diagonal , since , and its acute angles are each.
- The geometric justification is about areas: the square on the diagonal of a unit square holds eight of the same triangles against the original's four, so its area is 2 and its side .
- and , so .
- is irrational: assuming in lowest terms forces both and to be even, a contradiction — so it has no exact decimal or fraction.
You will remember all of this far better after answering five questions on it than after reading it twice.