Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?
From: *** T. Winter (***.Winter_at_cwi.nl)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: Herman Jurjus: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- Previous message: Robin Chapman: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- In reply to: Cassandra Thompson: "Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?"
- Next in thread: Cassandra Thompson: "Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:19:02 GMT
In article <8UoJc.1784$K53.1506@news-server.bigpond.net.au> cass.harley@bigpond.com writes:
...
> You have touched on what I was trying to say in a previous post (one
> that was about the same time as yours).
>
> Why is it important that the hypotonuse be the denomitator? Because the
> answer will always be <=1. Because as far as I can tell that is the only
> reason for choosing the sin/cos pair over the sec/csc pair.
>
> I am guessing that there is a very good answer why this is better then
> the result being >1, however I cannot yet see why.
Because in that case you have angles for which the function value is not
defined.
-- *** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
- Next message: Herman Jurjus: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- Previous message: Robin Chapman: "Re: You Don't Have to Be Nuts to Be a Mathematician ..."
- In reply to: Cassandra Thompson: "Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?"
- Next in thread: Cassandra Thompson: "Re: Sin Cos Tan, why not Sin Sec Tan?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Loading