Any Errors in My Proof for Derivative of Cosine?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter georg gill
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cos Derivative Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the derivative of the cosine function. Participants explore various methods of proving this derivative, including geometric definitions, power series, and differential equations, while also considering the potential for shorter proofs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a detailed proof for the derivative of cosine and seeks feedback on potential errors and shorter methods.
  • Another participant suggests that using a geometric definition of sine and cosine necessitates a thorough approach, implying that shortcuts may not be available from that perspective.
  • A different approach is proposed using the identity cos(x) = (e^(ix) + e^(-ix))/2, which simplifies the problem to finding the derivative of the exponential function.
  • One participant mentions the possibility of applying L'Hôpital's rule to the limit involving sinh, but raises concerns about circular reasoning if the derivative of sine is assumed to be cosine.
  • Another participant notes that this question has been raised previously and suggests that a shorter proof exists, referencing the use of angle sum formulas and geometric reasoning to derive the derivatives of sine and cosine.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and nature of shorter proofs for the derivative of cosine. While some agree on the correctness of the original proof, others propose alternative methods, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of certain methods, such as the dependence on prior knowledge of derivatives or the potential circularity in using L'Hôpital's rule without establishing the derivatives first. The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions and approaches that may not be universally accepted.

georg gill
Messages
151
Reaction score
6
Physics news on Phys.org
Skimming through your proof, everything looks correct. If you utilize a geometric definition of sine and cosine, you pretty much have to go through all of the arguments above in order to get the limit relations, so there aren't really any shortcuts from that viewpoint (at least none that I can think of).

If you want a shorter proof of the derivatives, you can always utilize a more sophisticated definition of sine and cosine. For example, with the power series definition it is pretty much immediate (once you have some theorems on differentiating power series of course). Another way that makes things pretty quick is defining sine and cosine via differential equations.
 
You could use the identity cos(x) =(eix + e-ix)/2, so the question reduces to the derivative of eu.
 
come to think of it one could also use L'hopital's on

\frac{sinh}{h} as h goes to zero

Should not be any reason not for that?
 
georg gill said:
come to think of it one could also use L'hopital's on

\frac{sinh}{h} as h goes to zero

Should not be any reason not for that?

To use L'Hopital's rule you need to know that the derivative of sine is cosine, but to prove that the derivative of sine is cosine you have to be able to evaluate that limit, so it would be a circular argument.
 
This is the second time this question has been posed here in a couple of weeks, see https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3617881&postcount=1 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=550860&highlight=Prove+the+differentiation+rule .

Yes I think there is a shorter version than this. The standard version given me and I think most people at school depends on the sine or cosine of sums of angles formulae which are not exactly self-evident and in fact an unnecessary slog. I propose this:

As the angle δx → 0 , the arc δx approaches ever closer to a very short straight line segment which I represent by ab in the Figure. Then our conclusion follows from the similarity of the little triangle oab to the large one OAB

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/7476/dsincosproof042.jpg



\frac{d\, sin x}{dx} = \frac{\mid oa \mid}{|ab|} = \frac {OA}{AB} = cos\, \angle OAB = cos \,x

Quite similarly

\frac{d\, cos x}{dx} = \frac{-\mid ob \mid}{|bc|} = \frac {-\,OB}{AB} = -\, sin\, \angle OAB = -\,sin\,x

I think that is all that is necessary.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
14K
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K