Help with Trigonometry equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter popsquare
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Trigonometry
AI Thread Summary
To convert the equation X = (pi)/4 + 2(pi)K into the form X = (pi)/4 + (pi)/2K, it is essential to recognize that the original equation only accounts for certain solutions of the sine function. The general solution from the equation 6 sin^2 X - 3 = 0 yields sin(X) = +/- 1/sqrt(2), leading to multiple angles including (3pi)/4, (5pi)/4, and (7pi)/4. The modified equation X = (pi)/4 + (pi)/2K captures all these solutions by allowing K to be any integer, reflecting the periodic nature of the sine function. While the initial equation is correct, it does not encompass all solutions unless K is restricted to integers, which is why the alternative form is preferred. Ultimately, the adjustment ensures that all valid solutions are represented succinctly.
popsquare
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
What is the algebraic method to get from X = (pi)/4 + 2(pi)K into this form => X = (pi)/4 + (pi)/2K ? These are the general equations for all solutions to this original equation: 6 sin^2 X-3=0 , I can understand how to get the general equation graphically can someone show me how to get from the first general equation to the second general equation which is the correct version?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
when you solve 6*sin^2(x)-3=0, you get sin(x)=+/- 1/sqrt(2). So, the first answer you gave is x=(pi/4)+2*pi*K. But this isn't all the answers. There are other such x values in [0,2pi) that satisfy sin(x)=+/- 1/sqrt(2) and they are (3pi)/4, (5pi)/4 and (7pi)/4. So you need to modify your solution to start with pi/4 and add these other values and all their multiples, which basically comes down to your second solution x=(pi/4)+(pi/2)*K since (3pi)/4=(pi/4)+(pi/2)*1, (5pi)/4=(pi/4)+(pi/2)*2 and so on.
 
i guess the solution needs to be modified since they are all multiples of pi/4. There might be a better way to understand this , I solved
3*pi/4 = pi/4 + 2*pi*k for k and got k=1/4. Then plugged this into the general equation for all solutions and got, pi/4+2*pi*1/4 which becomes
pi/4+pi/2 and just stuck a k on the end to get the general solution of
pi/4+pi/2*k. Is this correct reasoning because I don't understand why the k belongs on the end, because I already solved for K, it seems like I am using intuition rather than a logical algebraic method for why it goes back on the end.
 
in your last post, you are showing algebraically what K needs to be in order to get (3pi)/4. But the K must stay in the equation because sin is a periodic function. Like I said, pi/4, (3pi)/4, (5pi)/4 and (7pi)/4 all work as solutions. But if you add 2pi to any of these they always work. So the equation that accounts for all of this is x=(pi/4)+(pi/2)*K, where K is any integer, since to get from one solution to the next you just have to add some multiple of (pi/2).

so to sum it all up: the equation x=(pi/4)+2*pi*K is a correct equation but if K can only be an integer, it doesn't get all of the solutions. Like you showed, in order to get (3pi)/4 you need K=1/4. So rather than keeping that equation where this K can be fractions, they changed the equation to x=(pi/4)+(pi/2)*K, where K is any integer, which gives all the solutions in the most simple manner. There is not a way to algebraically manipulate the first answer to get the second one. It is just the reasoning of what the solution actually is and what the best way to present it would be.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top