Motivation of sin and cos functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the motivation behind sine and cosine functions through their Taylor expansions and their relationship with complex numbers. Participants explore whether it is possible to understand the argument of a complex number without prior knowledge of sine and cosine. A key conclusion is that sine and cosine can be viewed as inverses of the arclength function on the unit circle, with the book "Visual Complex Analysis" providing a comprehensive development of Euler's formula that emphasizes the exponential function and its Taylor series before introducing sine and cosine.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Taylor series and their applications
  • Familiarity with complex numbers and their properties
  • Knowledge of polar coordinates and their relation to Cartesian coordinates
  • Basic concepts of arclength on the unit circle
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Taylor series of exponential functions and their real and imaginary parts
  • Explore Euler's formula and its implications in complex analysis
  • Learn about the relationship between polar and Cartesian coordinates in the context of complex numbers
  • Investigate the arclength function on the unit circle and its inverse functions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, educators teaching trigonometric functions, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of sine and cosine functions.

Mappe
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Is there a way to motivate the sinus and cosinus functions by looking at their Taylor expansion? Or equivalently, is there a way to see that complex numbers adds their angles when multiplied without knowledge of sin and cos?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How are you defining the argument of a complex number without knowledge of sine and cosine?
 
Last edited:
In principle, the argument could be defined using the definition of "radian", but you'd have to use an integral to define the length of a curve segment. I think it would be difficult to use this approach to show that the arguments of the factors add up.
 
Fredrik said:
In principle, the argument could be defined using the definition of "radian", but you'd have to use an integral to define the length of a curve segment.
But in order to do that you need to parametrize an arc...and how do you do that without sine and cosine?
Edit: Ah, wait I guess if you used y in terms of x, it would work. Never mind.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand your question as asked. I.e. how could one know the Taylor expansions before knowing the functions? To me the sin and cos functions are merely inverses of the arclength function. I.e. consider the unit circle, and define a function of y to be the arclength of the circle measured from the x-axis to the point of the circle at height y. This is a natural function. The inverse of this function is the sin function. I.e. given the arclength of a portion of the circle reaching from the x-axis to some point above it, (but remaining in the first quadrant), the y coordinate is the sin of that angle measured in radians. The cosine is similar.Having read it again, your question does not seem to be how to motivate sina nd cos but how to prove the angle of a complex product is the sum of the angles of the factors. I.e. how to relate x and y coordinates of points in the plane to their polar coordinates. But that is essentially the meaning of sin and cos.
 
Is there a way to motivate the sinus and cosinus functions by looking at their Taylor expansion? Or equivalently, is there a way to see that complex numbers adds their angles when multiplied without knowledge of sin and cos?
Yes. The book "Visual Complex Analysis" has a very nice development in the first 15 pages that only establishes Euler's formula after the basic properties of the exponential, it's Tayler series, and the Taylor series of it's real and imaginary parts have been established. The sin and cos are almost afterthoughts.
 
Last edited:
As shown by this animation, the fibers of the Hopf fibration of the 3-sphere are circles (click on a point on the sphere to visualize the associated fiber). As far as I understand, they never intersect and their union is the 3-sphere itself. I'd be sure whether the circles in the animation are given by stereographic projection of the 3-sphere from a point, say the "equivalent" of the ##S^2## north-pole. Assuming the viewpoint of 3-sphere defined by its embedding in ##\mathbb C^2## as...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K