Sine function as an infinite sequence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation and validity of an equation involving the sine function expressed as an infinite product and its relation to a Maclaurin series. Participants explore the mathematical foundations and implications of the equation, including its behavior at specific points.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about deriving the sine function from a Maclaurin sequence and questions the validity of a specific equation involving sine.
  • Another participant asks for the origin of the equation and suggests that proving it may not be straightforward using a Taylor expansion.
  • A third participant disputes the equation's validity at x=0, noting a discrepancy between the left and right sides of the equation.
  • Another participant acknowledges the right side's undefined nature at x=0 but states it approaches 1 as a limit.
  • One participant provides a detailed explanation of how to manipulate the equation to arrive at Euler's product formula for the sine function, discussing the concept of infinitely many roots and the non-rigorous nature of Euler's approach.
  • A later reply thanks the participant for the explanation, indicating some level of understanding gained.
  • Another participant admits to having overlooked a critical component of the equation, specifically the "x" in the denominator on the right side.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the equation, particularly at x=0, with some asserting it is not true while others point out limits and conditions that may reconcile the discrepancy. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the equation's overall validity.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the equation's validity and the rigorousness of the derivations presented. The mathematical steps and definitions involved in the manipulation of the equation are not fully resolved.

Appleton
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
I have a vague understanding of how to derive the sine function from a Maclaurin Sequence however this isn't helping me figure out why:
(1 - [itex]\frac{x^{2}}{4π^{2}}[/itex]) (1 - [itex]\frac{x^{2}}{9π^{2}}[/itex]) (1 - [itex]\frac{x^{2}}{16π^{2}}[/itex])... = [itex]\frac{π^{2}}{x(x+π)}[/itex][itex]\frac{sin x - sin π}{x - π}[/itex]
Any help would be appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where does this equation come from?
It is probably possible to prove this identity (assuming it is true) in some way, but probably not with a simple Taylor expansion of sin(x).

And where is the point in subtracting sin(pi)?
 
This is certainly NOT true. At x= 0, the left side is 1 and the right side is 0.
 
The right side is undefined at x=0, but it has 1 as limit. That is fine.
 
If you multiply both sides by ##x(x-\pi)(x+\pi)/\pi^2##, and note that ##\sin(\pi) = 0## on the right hand side, you will end up with the product formula for the sine function, due to Euler:
$$\sin(x) = x \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(1 - \frac{ x^2}{\pi^2 n^2}\right)$$
He obtained this formula by rather brashly viewing the sine function as a "polynomial" with infinitely many roots, namely ##0, \pm \pi, \pm 2\pi, \pm 3\pi, \ldots##. Accordingly, he "factored" it as follows:
$$\sin(x) = kx(x \pm \pi)(x \pm 2\pi)(x \pm 3\pi)\ldots$$
for some constant ##k##. The constant must be chosen so that ##\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{\sin(x)}{x} = 1##, which forces
$$\sin(x) = x\left(1 \pm \frac{x}{\pi}\right)\left(1 \pm \frac{x}{2\pi}\right)\left(1 \pm \frac{x}{3\pi}\right)\ldots$$
Each plus/minus factor can be simplified as follows using the rule ##(a-b)(a+b) = a^2 - b^2##:
$$1 \pm \frac{x}{n\pi} = 1 - \frac{x^2}{n^2 \pi^2}$$
and the result follows.

Of course the above is completely nonrigorous. Euler had the extraordinary ability to turn invalid manipulations into valid results! The same result can be obtained rigorously by using Fourier series. See for example Courant and John, Introduction to Calculus and Analysis I, page 602.
 
thanks!
 
Sorry- I completely overlooked the "x" in the denominator on the right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K