My reasoning: the inverse secx not the reciprocal of inverse cosx?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the inverse secant and inverse cosine functions, particularly focusing on their domains and the implications for evaluating expressions involving these functions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of arcsec and arccos, questioning the validity of treating them as reciprocals due to differing domains. They discuss specific examples and identities to illustrate their points.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the definitions and relationships between the functions, while others are exploring the implications of these relationships. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions underlying the use of these functions in calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the domain restrictions of the inverse functions, with arccos defined on [-1, 1] and arcsec on (-∞, -1] U [1, ∞). There is also a discussion about the implications of using positive versus negative roots in trigonometric identities.

anniecvc
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
This came up when I was trying to evaluate to a decimal value an arcsec(something), but on TI-83 there is no inverse secant button. So, I punched 1/(arccos(something)). Naturally, this came up as a domain error.

Then my instructor pointed out arcsesc is not 1/arccosx. Oops.

Thinking about it, the domain of the cos-1x is [-1,1].

The domain the sec-1x is (-∞,-1]U[1,∞).

So although secx =1/cosx is an identity, it could not be the case for the inverses since there is a discrepancy in domain.

Also, the inverse cosine is the function which takes the y value and maps it to the x value, e.g cos-1(1/2) = ∏/3. The inverse secant for this domain value of 1/2 would be...well it wouldn't be since this value is not in the domain of the arcsec! That is an example of why the arcsec is not the multiplicative inverse of arccos.

Is there anything I should add or other pressing points or ways of looking at this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes. You can also see this by playing around a bit with the definitions.

arcsec(x) is the value y such that sec(y) = x, in other words, arcsec( 1/cos(x) ) = x.

If you look at 1/cos(1 / arccos(x)) you don't get x back. The best you can do is plug arccos(x) into the secant and get sec( arccos(x) ) = 1/cos( arccos(x) ) = 1/x, leading to the identity 1/sec(arccos(x)) = x.

Combining these, you can conclude that
arcsec(1/cos(x)) = 1/sec(arccos(x)).

You can try numerous tricks like taking the secant on both sides,
1/cos(x) = sec(1/sec(arccos(x)),
but because of the pesky 1/...'s you cannot get your (inverse) trig functions to cancel out.
 
CompuChip said:
but because of the pesky 1/...'s you cannot get your (inverse) trig functions to cancel out.
##\operatorname{arcsec}(x) = \arccos(1/x)## works quite nicely, as do ##\cos(\operatorname{arcsec}(x)) = \sec(\arccos(x)) = 1/x##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 2 people
As others have said, playing around with trig identities can give you interesting simplifications for nested trig functions. For instance;

##\sin^{2}x + \cos^{2}x = 1 \implies \sin x = \sqrt{1 - \cos^{2}x} \implies \sin(\arccos x) = \sqrt{1 - x^2}##.

Try finding an expression not involving a trig function for ##\sec(\arctan x)##, and perhaps other combinations if you're interested, e.g. ##\sin(\arctan x)##.
 
FeDeX_LaTeX said:
As others have said, playing around with trig identities can give you interesting simplifications for nested trig functions. For instance;

##\sin^{2}x + \cos^{2}x = 1 \implies \sin x = \sqrt{1 - \cos^{2}x} \implies \sin(\arccos x) = \sqrt{1 - x^2}##.

Try finding an expression not involving a trig function for ##\sec(\arctan x)##, and perhaps other combinations if you're interested, e.g. ##\sin(\arctan x)##.

Question:

Let x=sint => arcsinx = t

sin2t + cos2t = 1

cos2t = 1 - sin2t

cos2t = 1 - x2

cost = + (1-x2)1/2

cos(arcsinx) = (1-x)1/2

But why is it necessarily the positive root of cos2t that we take? I don't believe the "lengths of a side of a right triangle" argument suffices, since x can be a positive or negative number. I want to argue that since we are taking t = arcsinx,
then 0 ≤ t ≤∏, but then the cos t for
∏/2 < t ≤ ∏ is negative, so it's not guaranteed that the root is positive.
 
D H said:
##\operatorname{arcsec}(x) = \arccos(1/x)## works quite nicely, as do ##\cos(\operatorname{arcsec}(x)) = \sec(\arccos(x)) = 1/x##.

Hm interesting, I worked it out and it does seem to be the case. So in the future, I now know what to input into my calculator if I wanted to find an arcsecx. Thank You!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K