MHB How Do I Solve sec(θ-150°)=4 for θ Within Specific Degree Limits?

AI Thread Summary
To solve the equation sec(θ-150°)=4, it is first transformed into cos(θ-150°)=1/4. The inverse cosine gives θ-150°=75.52°, leading to θ=225.5°, which is outside the specified range of -180° to 180°. The correct solutions are derived from considering the reference angle and the cosine function's positivity in the first and fourth quadrants, resulting in θ=-134.5° and θ=74.5°. The confusion arises from the need to adjust the angles to fit within the specified limits, particularly rewriting 75.5° as -284.5° to find valid solutions.
Needhelp2
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
After a long summer, I finding my new C3 homework a bit tricky, so any help would be great!

Here is the question: sec(θ-150 degrees)=4

(solving for theta is greater than or equal to -180, but less than or equal to 180)

So I know that sec is the reciprocal of cos so I changed the equation to cos(θ-150)=1/4
from there I did the inverse of cos to get θ-150 = 75.52, then I added 150 to get θ= 225.5
I then drew a cos graph and from this would assume that the answers are 134.5 and -134.5... but the answer booklet for my textbook says they are -134.5 and 74.5!

This is probably so simple but I have no clue what I'm doing wrong!
(Sweating)

 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Needhelp said:
After a long summer, I finding my new C3 homework a bit tricky, so any help would be great!

Here is the question: sec(θ-150 degrees)=4

(solving for theta is greater than or equal to -180, but less than or equal to 180)

So I know that sec is the reciprocal of cos so I changed the equation to cos(θ-150)=1/4
from there I did the inverse of cos to get θ-150 = 75.52, then I added 150 to get θ= 225.5
I then drew a cos graph and from this would assume that the answers are 134.5 and -134.5... but the answer booklet for my textbook says they are -134.5 and 74.5!

This is probably so simple but I have no clue what I'm doing wrong!
(Sweating)


The angle theta - 150 is a reference angle. What does that mean for your solutions?

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
The angle theta - 150 is a reference angle. What does that mean for your solutions?

-Dan

What is a reference angle? Sorry for such a silly question!
 
Needhelp said:
After a long summer, I finding my new C3 homework a bit tricky, so any help would be great!

Here is the question: sec(θ-150 degrees)=4

(solving for theta is greater than or equal to -180, but less than or equal to 180)

So I know that sec is the reciprocal of cos so I changed the equation to cos(θ-150)=1/4
from there I did the inverse of cos to get θ-150 = 75.52, then I added 150 to get θ= 225.5
I then drew a cos graph and from this would assume that the answers are 134.5 and -134.5... but the answer booklet for my textbook says they are -134.5 and 74.5!

This is probably so simple but I have no clue what I'm doing wrong!
(Sweating)



It looks like you've got one answer but the second answer of 74.5 is confusing you. Where are $\cos(x)$ or $\sec(x)$ positive? In the first and fourth quadrants. Since your solution is positive then these need to be positive as well.

The way to set up your solution normally would be:

[math]\theta - 150 = 75.5[/math] and [math]\theta - 150 = -75.5[/math]

Due to restrictions though in directions we must rewrite the first angle as a negative angle so we get [math]\theta - 150 = -284.5[/math]

Make sense?
 
Not really...(Sweating) I don't understand where you got the value of -284 from, and it isn't within the degree specification? (at least if it goes from -180 up to 180)
Sorry for being so dim, could you possibly take it step by step to get the second value of 74.5 and explain why 134.5 isn't a valid answer?

Im just so confused :confused:

Thanks though for all your help!
 
Needhelp said:
Not really...(Sweating) I don't understand where you got the value of -284 from, and it isn't within the degree specification? (at least if it goes from -180 up to 180)
Sorry for being so dim, could you possibly take it step by step to get the second value of 74.5 and explain why 134.5 isn't a valid answer?

Im just so confused :confused:

Thanks though for all your help!

Sure :)

You're right that -284 isn't within the degree specification but that's not what $\theta$ is. We're looking at $\theta - 150$. $\theta$ must be from -180 to 180 but not $\theta - 150$. The -284.5 comes from the fact that if you look at the angle 75.5 degrees you can consider this as going counter-clockwise 75.5 degrees or go the other way a whole -284.5 degrees (clockwise because it's a negative angle) and you'll reach the same place. Notice that 284.5+75.5=360. Try drawing them both.

This problem has a restriction on $\theta$ which makes it tricky. You almost solved it yourself. Without the restrictions you could just solve:

(1) $\displaystyle \theta - 150 = 75.5$
(2) $\displaystyle \theta - 150 = -75.5$

as I said before. The reason you would choose (1) and (2) is because we need $\cos( \theta-150)$ to be positive and cosine is only positive in the first and fourth quadrant.

However due to the restrictions on $\theta$ if we solve both of these then the answer for (1) doesn't fall within the specified domain, so we must rewrite 75.5 as -284.5.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top