The subset of transcedental numbers is not decidable. We assume here that reals are represented in a standard way, so that we can compute limits of sequences of reals which are computably Cauchy.
Recall that a sequence $(a_n)_n$ is computably Cauchy if there is a computable map $f$ such that, given any $k$ we have $|a_{m} - a_{n}| < 2^{-k}$ for all $m, n \geq f(k)$. The standard representations of reals are like that, for example the one where a real is represented by a machine that computes an arbitrarily good rational approximation. (We can also speak in terms of computing digits, but then we have to allow negative digits. This is a well known issue in computability theory of the reals.)
Theorem: Suppose $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}$ is a subset such that there exists a computable sequence $(a_n)_n$ which is computably Cauchy and its limit $x = \lim_n a_n$ is outside $S$. Then the question "is a real number $x$ an element of $S$" is undecidable.
Proof.
Suppose $S$ were decidable. Given any Turing machine $T$, consider the sequence $b_n$ defined as
$$b_n = \begin{cases}
a_n & \text{if $T$ has not halted in the first $n$ steps,}\\\\
a_m & \text{if $T$ has halted in step $m$ and $m \leq n$.}
\end{cases}$$
It is easy to check that $b_n$ is computably Cauchy, therefore we can compute its limit $y = \lim_n b_n$. Now we have $y \in S$ iff $T$ halts, so we can solve the Halting Problem. QED.
There is a dual theorem in which we assume the sequence is outside $S$ but its limit is in $S$.
Examples of sets $S$ satisfying these conditions are: an open interval, a closed interval, the negative numbers, the singleton $\lbrace 0 \rbrace$, rational numbers, irrational numbers, transcedental numbers, algebraic numbers, etc.
A set which does not satisfy the conditions of the theorem is $S = \lbrace q + \alpha \mid q \in \mathbb{Q}\rbrace$ of rational numbers translated by a non-computable number $\alpha$. Exercise: is $S$ decidable?