How do you compute trig ratios for angles greater than 90 degrees?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pokemonDoom
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elementary Trig
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around computing trigonometric ratios for angles greater than 90 degrees, focusing on the geometric interpretations and relationships between angles in different quadrants. Participants explore the definitions and properties of sine and cosine in relation to acute angles and their corresponding angles in other quadrants.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the coordinates of points in different quadrants and attempts to derive sine and cosine values for angles greater than 90 degrees.
  • Another participant corrects the coordinates and suggests that understanding the geometric relationships will clarify the trigonometric ratios.
  • There is a request for a geometric argument to explain why the reference angle works for angles greater than 90 degrees.
  • Concerns are raised about the definitions used in textbooks and the clarity of explanations regarding the sine and cosine of angles in different quadrants.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between angles AOB and AOC, and how their sine and cosine values relate to each other.
  • Questions are posed about the equivalence of sine values for angles in different triangles and the reasoning behind these relationships.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express confusion and seek clarification on the relationships between angles and their trigonometric ratios, indicating that there is no consensus on the explanations provided. Multiple viewpoints and interpretations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and properties of trigonometric functions as they apply to angles greater than 90 degrees, highlighting potential limitations in their understanding and the resources available to them.

pokemonDoom
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Say I have an acute angle A in standard position in the first quadrant with a rotating arm of length r , terminating at coordinate P(a,b) . Now say I rotate it 90 degrees further from that position to the second quadrant , this ends up at coordinate Q(-a,b) . I draw perpendiculars from those two positions to the x-axis .

for the first triangle , sin A = b/r and cos A = a/r

as for the second triangle , why is sin (90+A) = a/r = cos A
and why is cos(90+A) = -b/r = -sin A

Im confused ... how can you compute the trig ratio for an angle greater than 90 degress ? Why not take the ratio for the acute angle (180 - (90+a))

Pls Help .
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

pokemonDoom said:
Say I have an acute angle A in standard position in the first quadrant with a rotating arm of length r , terminating at coordinate P(a,b) . Now say I rotate it 90 degrees further from that position to the second quadrant , this ends up at coordinate Q(-a,b) .

Hi ! Welcome to PF! :smile:

No … (-a,b) is the reflection of (a,b) in the y-axis.

You want Q(b,-a).

Then everythihng will make sense! :smile:
 
hmm ... but that doesn't solve my problem ... I need to know why the so called "reference angle" or the "corresponding acute angle" actually works for angles greater than 90 degrees , when taking sines and cosines or tangents . Is there a geometric argument for it ?
 
Im not entirely sure what your question is; but if it boils down to "why is cos(x)=sin(x+90) ?", then you can answer this by looking at the graphs of the sine and cosine functions.
 
Heres my problem ...

For the triangle in the second quadrant , why does my book state

sin(90+theta) = a/r and cos(90+theta) = -b/r

when clearly (90+theta) isn't even one of the angles in the triangle ... ? This was what I meant when I said why not calculate (180-90-theta) ...

I don't get this part ... ! I've looked up 2/3 trig books by native authors (I live in Nepal) and they don't seem to explain why this is so ... and I have yet to find a good trig book on the internet ... Thanks a mil .
 
Last edited:
Hi pokemonDoom! :smile:
pokemonDoom said:
For the triangle in the second quadrant …

No … the triangle is not in the second quadrant … its base is still in the first quadrant, and its tip is in the second quadrant.

For an easy example, consider the two triangles OAB and OAC, where O = (0,0), A = (1,0), B = (1,1), and C = (-1,1). So OA = 1, and OB = OC = √2. Put D = (-1,0).

Then angle AOB = 45º, and angle AOC = 135º.

And cosAOB = OA/OB = 1/√2, cosAOC = AD/OC = -1/√2.

But sinAOB = AB/OB = 1/√2, sinAOC = DC/OC = 1/√2. :smile:
 
Hello Tim ,

Im confused ...

how can the cosine of <AOC be AD/OC ... if I know better , its probably a typo .

and in triangle-DOC (which lies squarely on the second quadrant of my graph) how is it that the sine of <AOC is equivalent to the sine of <DOC ... This is the question in the first place .

Many thanks .
 
pokemonDoom said:
Im confused ...

how can the cosine of <AOC be AD/OC ... if I know better , its probably a typo .

Hi pokemonDoom! :smile:

Yes … sorry … it should be cosAOC = OD/OC = -1/√2. :redface:
and in triangle-DOC (which lies squarely on the second quadrant of my graph) how is it that the sine of <AOC is equivalent to the sine of <DOC ... This is the question in the first place .

Because sin = opposite/hypotenuse.

The side opposite angle AOB is AB, and the side opposite angle AOC is DC.

And AB = DC, so sinAOB = sinAOC. :smile:

(and of course, the diagram works for any angle, not just 45º)
 
... I get it !

But isn't the angle opposite side DC <DOC ... ? I am not trying to sound dumb but what youre trying to say is exactly what the question is .

Why should sineAOC =CD/OC , when its perfectly legible that sineDOC = CD/OC .

In essence what youre trying to say is for any angle greater than 90 degrees , the ratio of that angle is equal to the ratio of the acute angle formed with the nearest x-axis ... ?? but why? is there a geometric proof of some kind ?? instead of just guessing that the ratios are equal ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K