Reconciling definitions of sine
By George Walker on Wednesday, December
11, 2002 - 11:14 am:
I may be being a little stupid, but in our analysis course in
the last lecture we defined the sine function (its definition is
the power series; sinx=x-x3 /3!+... )
What I was wondering is how possibly the ratio of the opposite
and hypotenuse in a right angled triangle is in any way derived
from this...since when we are 12 we learn that sine is "opposite
over hypotenuse" !
By Demetres Christofides on Wednesday,
December 11, 2002 - 12:18 pm:
This is not a stupid but a very natural question to ask. The
whole point is that this definition is actually equivalent to ''opposite over
hypotenuse'' that we learn at school. I'll try to give some hints on why this
is so.
Firstly we need to explain how we measure the angle. The degrees are not
helpful any more so we will use radians (I hope it will become clearer later
why we choose to do so). Draw a circle of unit radius and look at O
, A
and B
where B is on the circumference of the circle on the first quadrant.
Convince yourself that the angle AOB is the length of the arc of the circle
from A to B (that's where radians come in). We aim to formalize this: Define
by
[We just take
the positive square root] Let O
, A
, B
where
and define the
angle AOB to be the length of
from 0 to
. Write
for
this. [Convince yourself that is what we want the angle to be] Show that
. This can also be extended for negative
. Define
to be equal to
[Check that it agrees with what what
we understand by
]. Now some more analysis: Show that
is strictly increasing. So
exists. Call it sin! [Note that for
if
, then
, which is what we want it to be!
(Draw a picture)] Extend its domain to the whole of
so that it is periodic. Show that sin is continuous twice differentiable with
for all real
. Solve this differential equation (using power series) to recover your
lecturer's definition of sin. Demetres
By George Walker on Thursday, December 12,
2002 - 10:04 am:
Thank you, I had done the last bit (power series solution of
the differential equation), it was just formalising the first
part. Good answer