TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Stacking triangles for fun and profit

193 点作者 olooney大约 1 年前

17 条评论

gjm11大约 1 年前
I don&#x27;t agree with the perspective taken here; I don&#x27;t see any reason to think that the definition in terms of triangles is the simplest or most natural, and I suspect the author feels that way just because it&#x27;s how they were first taught about trigonometrical functions.<p>Of course I <i>do</i> agree that definitions in terms of power series and differential equations are less natural and require heavier mathematical machinery.<p>But: the &quot;right-angled triangle&quot; definitions have the <i>severe</i> drawback of only applying to a restricted range of angles, and their relationship to those higher-tech definitions is more indirect than necessary.<p>Instead, I claim that the One True Definition of the trig functions is: if you start with the point (1,0) and rotate it through an angle t (anticlockwise, which is conventionally the &quot;positive&quot; direction in maths) about (0,0), then the point where it ends up is (cos t, sin t).<p>This is just as simple, and just as geometrical, as the &quot;triangle&quot; definition. It leads directly to the differential-equation characterization (which in turn leads easily to the power series). For angles between 0 and pi&#x2F;2, it&#x27;s obviously equivalent to the &quot;triangle&quot; definition.<p>Can you get the addition theorems easily from this definition? Yes, and (again) without the severe drawback of only applying when all the angles involved are between 0 and pi&#x2F;2 as for the &quot;triangle&quot; definition.<p>Start with a diagram showing the points (0,0), (cos t, 0), (0, sin t), (cos t, sin t). Now rotate the whole thing through an angle u about the origin. Obviously (0,0) stays where it is. (cos t, 0) just goes to cos t times (cos u, sin u), i.e., to (cos t cos u, cos t sin u). If you turn your head through 90 degrees it becomes clear that (0, sin t) similarly goes to (- sin t cos u, sin t sin u). And of course (cos t, sin t) goes to (cos t+u, sin t+u) since we have rotated it through an angle t and then through an angle u.<p>And now we&#x27;re done, because the &quot;vector addition&quot; property the original diagram had remains true after rotation, so adding (cos t cos u, cos t sin u) to (- sin t cos u, sin t sin u) has to give you (cos t+u, sin t+u). And that&#x27;s exactly the addition theorems.<p>(That may be hard to follow with no diagrams, but I think it&#x27;s easier to follow than the triangle-stacking proof would be without diagrams, and with diagrams everything is pretty transparent.)<p>The right-angled-triangle definitions are traditional because historically trigonometry came before coordinates. But now we have coordinates and generally learn about them before we learn trigonometry, and at that point the point-on-the-unit-circle definitions are simpler, more general, and better suited for proving other things.
评论 #40003607 未加载
评论 #40005254 未加载
评论 #40003359 未加载
评论 #40005403 未加载
评论 #40003070 未加载
评论 #40002770 未加载
phkahler大约 1 年前
&gt;&gt; What struck me as odd when I was an undergraduate, and still strikes me to this day, is that none of these are the obvious trigonometric definitions about the opposite and adjacent sides of a right triangle.<p>I had the less common experience of learning some graphics programming prior to taking a trig class in school. &quot;How do I draw a circle?&quot; You sweep an angle from 0 to 360 (or 2*pi) and use sin() and cos() to get points on the unit circle, then multiply by your radius and plot them. For me the notion of sin and cos being coordinates of points on a unit circle was natural. Later when I had trig class it seemed really weird to define these functions as ratios of sides of a triangle. In particular you never talk about a side length as being negative. So no, it&#x27;s not universal that the triangle definitions seem more obvious or make more intuitive sense.<p>I think this is important for people to understand. What seems easy or natural can depend on how your particular tree of knowledge was constructed.
评论 #40004643 未加载
评论 #40002782 未加载
评论 #40002411 未加载
评论 #40008859 未加载
dhosek大约 1 年前
One of the nicest definitions of the six basic trig functions involves drawing an ray from the origin of a unit circle with its center at the origin.¹ Where the ray intersects the circle at point <i>A</i> draw a vertical line perpendicular to the <i>x</i> axis. The height of the line segment from <i>A</i> to the <i>x</i> axis will be the sine of the angle between the ray and the <i>x</i> axis. The length of the line segment from the origin to where your vertical line hits the <i>x</i> axis will be the cosine.<p>Now, draw a tangent line perpendicular to the <i>x</i> axis and find the point <i>B</i> where your ray intersects the tangent line. The length of the segment from the origin to <i>B</i> will be the secant, the length of the segment from <i>B</i> to the <i>x</i> axis will be the tangent.²<p>Finally, draw the tangent line parallel to the <i>x</i> axis and find the intersection of the ray with that line at <i>C</i>. The length of the segment from <i>C</i> to the origin will be the cosecant and the segment from the <i>y</i> axis to <i>C</i> will be the cotangent.<p>You can use your basic trig identities and knowledge of similar triangles to verify the relationships between the functions and the triangles. Angles outside the first quadrant will give signed values that make sense if you consider segments going down or left to be negative (but down <i>and</i> left is positive).<p>⸻<p>1. I’m making reference to cartesian coordinates strictly for the sake of convenience since I’m using only words to describe a diagram.<p>2. I’m doing this from memory and really hoping I’m not mixing up the tangent, cotangent, secant and cosecant
评论 #40004131 未加载
jihadjihad大约 1 年前
Maybe I just got lucky, but that&#x27;s pretty much exactly how I remember being taught in high school calculus class. No ODEs or anything of course, but the teacher started from the geometry, then moved to the trig functions and identities, and finally to derivatives and Taylor &#x2F; Maclaurin series.<p>It&#x27;s a good post, and I agree--there is just no hope in getting students to develop any kind of intuition in math without starting from something really simple like the geometry of the problem. Plus, it&#x27;s way more fun!
评论 #40002317 未加载
评论 #40003587 未加载
评论 #40003101 未加载
enizor2大约 1 年前
I do not understand this consideration: &gt; By considering a triangle with hypotenuse 1 and a very small “opposite” side, it’s not hard to see geometrically that sin(x)≈x and cos(h)=x when x is small<p>I fail to see how you can &quot;see&quot; finer than sin(h) -&gt; 0 &amp; cos(h) -&gt; 1<p>From the limit definitions you actually need :<p>* (1-cos(h)) &#x2F; h -&gt; 0<p>* sin(h)&#x2F;h -&gt; 1<p>(which correspond to the derivatives at 0).
评论 #40006300 未加载
评论 #40003268 未加载
评论 #40008811 未加载
Tainnor大约 1 年前
The article initially points out that in mathematics, there are often equivalent definitions, that each have their own benefits and drawbacks. I think the author could have just written &quot;I have found an alternative approach&quot; instead of &quot;I have found a better approach&quot;.<p>As others have noted here, the geometric argument only works &quot;intuitively&quot; for acute angles and the functions have to be explicitly extended. Still, I hadn&#x27;t seen this proof of the angle addition formula yet, and I found it neat.<p>From a point of view of formalisation, a power series based approach (either directly or via the complex exp function) as traditionally used is probably better, because going into analysis (especially complex analysis), you&#x27;re going to need power series anyway. Geometry meanwhile is intuitive to us but you&#x27;d have to encode a bunch of Euclidean axioms and theorems beforehand, which you might not otherwise use. Also, for better or worse, many mathematicians aren&#x27;t really taught axiomatic geometry (I wasn&#x27;t at least).
dmayle大约 1 年前
I started reading this, and the article is very approachable, but it’s flawed from almost the very beginning.<p>He uses the angle addition formulas to derive the Pythagorean theorem, but this derivation only works because he predefined sine and cosine as odd and even functions, which hasn’t been proven
评论 #40003397 未加载
personjerry大约 1 年前
Also fun exercise:<p>Go through Euclid&#x27;s Elements (i.e. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;aleph0.clarku.edu&#x2F;~djoyce&#x2F;elements&#x2F;bookI&#x2F;bookI.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;aleph0.clarku.edu&#x2F;~djoyce&#x2F;elements&#x2F;bookI&#x2F;bookI.html</a>)<p>Read the definitions and then prove all the postulates yourself, in order.
mckn1ght大约 1 年前
&gt; none of these are the obvious trigonometric definitions about the opposite and adjacent sides of a right triangle<p>Am I just misunderstanding something about this articles motivation? I’m pretty sure I learned the unit circle in high school trig, possibly even 7th grade geometry although my memory that far back is fuzzier; but we did lots of geometric constructions with straightedge and compass, and did basic geometric proofs using complementary angles etc, and my teacher was obsessed with triangles. I didn’t learn about series until Calc 2 in early undergrad.<p>I still use the unit circle to reconstruct various trig properties from memory.
评论 #40003478 未加载
评论 #40005036 未加载
vanderZwan大约 1 年前
I wonder if the author of this article would like Norman J. Wildberger&#x27;s work on rational trigonometry[0], which also argues that angles and unit circles are the wrong starting point for defining triangles.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Divine_Proportions:_Rational_Trigonometry_to_Universal_Geometry" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Divine_Proportions:_Rational_T...</a>
laserbeam大约 1 年前
This is absolutely great, easy to follow and explain. I love it! However it is incomplete, and thus doesn’t work as a proof.<p>As the angles increase, the 2 triangles will no longer be inside the rectangle. Signs start to flip around and extra work is needed to show the sin(a+b) and cos(a+b) equations are sound. The bright side is this is a good asignment for the student.
architectonic大约 1 年前
I have created a simple geogebra Applet applying your method step by step: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.geogebra.org&#x2F;m&#x2F;enztf4s6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.geogebra.org&#x2F;m&#x2F;enztf4s6</a>
isolli大约 1 年前
My daughter (in 5th grade) is interested in learning advanced maths, so we looked at sine and cosine.<p>Question: is there an easy, geometrical way to &quot;show&quot; that `cos(60º)=1&#x2F;2` using the intuitive definition based on the trigonometric circle?
评论 #40002681 未加载
评论 #40002509 未加载
评论 #40002913 未加载
评论 #40002734 未加载
woopwoop大约 1 年前
I guess it&#x27;s all in the way you look at things. I would say that the addition formulae for sine and cosine are more weird and technical than the Banach fixed point theorem, which I would say is much more fundamental.
tel大约 1 年前
I think there&#x27;s a bit of a straw man here pointing at the series definitions as being applied as the &quot;intuitive&quot; sense for sin and cos.<p>Instead, I find that the intuition that&#x27;s sought is more to start by seeing exp(it) as being a generator of complex rotation---a tremendously beautiful and parsimonious bit of theory---and then seeing sin and cos as being 1-dimensional coordinate projections of that.<p>Then the series definitions are just cute ways of deriving that relationship formally.<p>Circles over triangles.
gertrunde大约 1 年前
&gt; Now, the line EC is perpendicular to AB, and the line BC is perpendicular is AC, so the angle ∠BCE is the same as the angle ∠CAD which we called α.<p>I&#x27;m hoping that&#x27;s a typo, and should be:<p>&gt; Now, the line EC is perpendicular to <i>AD</i>, and...<p>(Edit: although I vaguely recall in school doing that bit as the sum of the angles around point C)
评论 #40003441 未加载
salahalzoobi大约 1 年前
ok