Talk:Trigonometric functions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:45, 14 February 2025

Latest revision as of 12:18, 2 July 2025

(16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)

Line 31:

}}

{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}

== Algebraic value of sin 45° ==

{{ping|DVdm‬}} reverted my change from

:<math>\sin \frac\pi4 = \sin 45^\circ = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} = \frac{\sqrt2}2</math>

to

:<math>\sin \frac\pi4 = \sin 45^\circ = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} = \frac{1}{\sqrt2}</math>

with the comment "Sqrt(2)/2 is much more common than 1/sqrt(2) in the literature". Though I understand that &radic;2/2 is more common, the line gives it twice. I wonder if it may help learners to know that both expressions are valid, should they come across the rarer form. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Cheers,<br />'''[[User:cmglee|cm&#610;&#671;ee]]'''&#9094;[[User_Talk:cmglee|&#964;a&#671;&#954;]] 22:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|Crissov}} added the accidentally duplicate values on [[Special:Diff/937238790|23 January 2020]]. Previously, the values looked [[Special:PermanentLink/937232343#Algebraic values|like this]] and the duplication probably came from the "easy way to remember" values. Probably best to omit. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

::Yes, I already removed the duplicate values: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trigonometric_functions&type=revision&diff=966142213&oldid=966141888]. - [[User:DVdm|DVdm]] ([[User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 06:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

:::It might make sense to add a note to show it either way [[User:Bera678|Bera678]] ([[User talk:Bera678|talk]]) 12:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

== SOHCAHTOA ==

@[[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] et al., I have heard many people talk about "SOHCAHTOA". Although I don't have a citation at hand, I think it is improvement to the article to discuss SOHCAHTOA. Hopefully, someone will come up with a citation pronto and this will all be moot but, even if not, might we keep this discussion anyway? —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 13:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

:This is discussed at [[Mnemonics in trigonometry]]. You can navigate to [[SOHCAHTOA]] to see the relevant section. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 13:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

== Merging pages ==

I was on this page and I became curious: why do tangent, cotangent, secant and cosecant all share a page while sine and cosine get their own? Why can't we move them all into one page? [[User:Sniperstock9041|Snipe]] ([[User talk:Sniperstock9041|talk]]) 01:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

:These were merged (a long time ago) because it was thought that most relevant material about any of them would be applicable to all of the others, many relevant features would be useful to compare from one to another, and important context was needed in common between them. People thought separate articles would consist of substantially duplicated material.

:In retrospect I think this was the wrong decision (or rather, I think we should have an article called [[trigonometric functions]] about some common features and ''also'' have separate articles). Having these lumped together has discouraged people from adding useful information which applies to only one or another. Any subject which has enough to say about it independently to flesh out a self-contained article should generally have one, and there is quite a lot to separately say about sine, tangent, secant, etc., especially discussion about history. I eventually intend to make separate [[tangent (trigonometry)]] and [[secant (trigonometry)]] pages, and would be opposed to getting rid of the [[sine and cosine]] page, which should in my opinion also be expanded and somewhat reorganized. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[User_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 05:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

== Notes and References ==

Line 160 ⟶ 130:

:For example, in some fields of mathematics one can pick and choose among some axioms. Seemingly these axioms are not fundamentally true in all contexts, ready to be discovered, but merely are useful in some contexts. —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 15:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}} This is a part of a longstanding debate (see [[Mathematical platonism]]) on reality of mathematics. I agree that for trigonometric functions, the right term is "defined". For axioms the right terms are "stated" in the case of an axiom modeling the reality, such as the [[Parallel postulate]] or "chosen" in the case of the specification of the theory (there are many axiom systems that define the same theory. In the case of a theorem or a conjecture, I would use "stated". It is only for proofs that I would use "discovered". However, this does not cover the cases of wide theories and branches of mathematics, such as [[set theory]], [[infinitesimal calculus]], [[Probability]] and [[distribution (mathematics)|distribution theory]] for which I would use "introduced" or "initiated". [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

: I would also prefer "defined" or "introduced" in many cases. (I'm fine with "discovered" a theorem.) However, sometimes I have seen "invented", which I think is even worse than "discovered". [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 15:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Line 165 ⟶ 136:

::Yes, I agree that "discovering a proof" would be okay. —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:It's usually better to not claim a "first" for specific characters, because such claims are nearly always wrong. The best is to just state exactly what we know: so-and-so specifically did such-and-such, and not speculate about whether or not anyone else had done so previously. One other phrasing that is usually accurate at the time (though can also become outdated) is something like "the earliest known X is found in Y" or "the oldest extant example of X is Y". –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 15:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I went ahead and boldly edited. If that's wrong, please undo ... and discuss further here. Thanks —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 15:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:All of our articles [[Trigonometric functions]], [[Trigonometry]], and [[History of trigonometry]] also do a very poor job of explaining the varying mathematical context through history. There was no concept of "trigonometric functions" per se until quite recently. Through most of history these were taken to be line segments (and line segments were implicitly associated with their lengths), not numbers or ratios.

:It's anachronistic and misleading to say something like "X person invented the cotangent function" when an accurate description would be more like "X person wrote down a table associating the sun's altitude to the length of the shadow of a vertical gnomon (sundial rod), which 2 centuries later began to be used for more general trigonometric purposes. X's table was probably based on earlier examples, possibly much earlier, but they have been lost." –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 15:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

== Use of tau (𝜏) in addition to π ==

Could the "Algebraic values" section benefit from providing radian measures in terms of 𝜏 as well as π? For people coming to trigonometry for the first time this could give an additional intuition linking angles to turns around the unit circle.

For example:

sin π/6 = sin 𝜏/12 = sin 30° = √1/2 = 1/2 [[User:TheGrifter80|TheGrifter80]] ([[User talk:TheGrifter80|talk]]) 02:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

: tau is fringe, so doesn't belong here. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 11:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:IMHO, {{mvar|𝜏}} is interesting but not common enough in use for use in this article. —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 12:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, fair enough [[User:TheGrifter80|TheGrifter80]] ([[User talk:TheGrifter80|talk]]) 09:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

== Degree sign explicitly shown ==

In the [[Trigonometric functions#Radians versus degrees|Radians versus degrees]] section, it says: "If units of degrees are intended, the degree sign must be explicitly shown (sin x°, cos x°, etc.)." I don't think this makes any sense. Extracting the unit out of a variable (i.e. making the variable a dimensionless scalar) is discouraged pretty much everywhere, as far as I'm aware. (In this case the degree is not really even a unit but more like a constant, which makes this even worse.) I'm going to remove the passage. [[User:Granite11|Granite11]] ([[User talk:Granite11|talk]]) 20:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:Let's discuss this first before editing. —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 20:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:I think of the degree sign not as a {{!tq|unit}} but as a {{tq|multiplicative factor}}, with the value {{math|''π''/180}}. That is, much as {{math|90''x''}} means {{math|90}} times whatever value {{mvar|x}} has, an expression like {{math|90°}} means {{math|90}} times {{math|''π''/180}}, which is {{math|''π''/2}}, and is thus converted to radians before being handed to a trigonometric function. —[[User:Quantling|<span class="texhtml"><i>Q</i></span>uantling]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Quantling|talk]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Quantling|contribs]]) 20:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::I just published my changes before reading your reply—sorry about that. I think all of the text I removed was either redundant, or in the case of the claim that a degree sign must be suffixed to the variable symbol, sketchy. I agree completely with your view of the degree as a multiplicative factor, and the last sentence of the section mentions that still. [[User:Granite11|Granite11]] ([[User talk:Granite11|talk]]) 21:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:This doesn't make sense to me either. I would never write {{tmath|\cos x^\circ}}, and can't remember having ever seen that notation. It's just {{tmath|\cos x}}, even if {{tmath|x}} is an angle that has been specified in degrees.

:What is fair to say is that someone should try not to write {{tmath|\cos 60}} when they mean {{tmath|\cos 60^\circ}}, because the former is potentially confusing. –[[user:jacobolus|jacobolus]] [[user_talk:jacobolus|(t)]] 03:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:: For what it's worth, in mathematica the degree symbol is a constant numerical factor. This is potentially a source for this sometimes being the case. [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 11:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)