MHB Solving the Equation cos (x)=-0.8

  • Thread starter Thread starter fordy2707
  • Start date Start date
fordy2707
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hi all,just wondering if someone could cast an eye over this,

find all the solutions to the following equation at intervals 0,6$\pi$

cos (x)= -0.8

= $143^{\circ}$

my answer by using the quadrant chart

= 180$^{\circ}$-143$^{\circ}$= $37^{\circ}$

= 180$^{\circ}$ + 37$^{\circ}$ = 217$^{\circ}$

so

= $143^{\circ}$ x $\pi$ / 180

= 143$\pi$ / 180
+2$\pi$= 503$\pi$ / 180
+2$\pi$ = 863$\pi$ / 180

and the 2nd set of solutions

=217$^{\circ}$ x $\pi$ / 180

=217 $\pi$ / 180
+2$\pi$=577 $\pi$ /180
+2$\pi$ =937$\pi$ /180

I was wondering about my answers as the fraction figures seem very large
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I would look at the symmetry of the solutions about $x=2k\pi$ where $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ to write:

$$x=2k\pi\pm\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)$$

And so on the given interval, we find:

$$x=0+\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)\approx2.498091544796509$$

$$x=2\pi-\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)\approx3.7850937623830774$$

$$x=2\pi+\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)\approx8.781276851976095$$

$$x=4\pi-\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)\approx10.068279069562664$$

$$x=4\pi+\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)\approx15.064462159155681$$

$$x=6\pi-\arccos\left(-\frac{4}{5}\right)\approx16.35146437674225$$
 
fordy2707 said:
Hi all,just wondering if someone could cast an eye over this,

find all the solutions to the following equation at intervals 0,6$\pi$

cos (x)= -0.8

= $143^{\circ}$
To begin with this says that "cos(x)= $143^{\circ}$" which is nonsense. You mean to say "x= $143^{\circ}$" although I would say that was incorrect because x is clearly supposed to be in radians, not degrees. And, of course, "143 degrees" is not correct because it does not include the decimal part. x is approximately $143^{\circ}$ though that is not a very good approximation.

[/tex]my answer by using the quadrant chart

= 180$^{\circ}$-143$^{\circ}$= $37^{\circ}$

= 180$^{\circ}$ + 37$^{\circ}$ = 217$^{\circ}$

so

= $143^{\circ}$ x $\pi$ / 180

= 143$\pi$ / 180
+2$\pi$= 503$\pi$ / 180
+2$\pi$ = 863$\pi$ / 180

and the 2nd set of solutions

=217$^{\circ}$ x $\pi$ / 180

=217 $\pi$ / 180
+2$\pi$=577 $\pi$ /180
+2$\pi$ =937$\pi$ /180

I was wondering about my answers as the fraction figures seem very large
937/180= 5.2055... which is less than 6 and you were asked about values less that $6\pi$.

However, I would have set my calculator to radian measure to begin with. Is there any reason you took this "detour" through degrees? You would get a much more accurate answer since you just ignored the decimal part of the degree measure.
 
HallsofIvy said:
To begin with this says that "cos(x)= $143^{\circ}$" which is nonsense. You mean to say "x= $143^{\circ}$" although I would say that was incorrect because x is clearly supposed to be in radians, not degrees. And, of course, "143 degrees" is not correct because it does not include the decimal part. x is approximately $143^{\circ}$ though that is not a very good approximation.937/180= 5.2055... which is less than 6 and you were asked about values less that $6\pi$.

However, I would have set my calculator to radian measure to begin with. Is there any reason you took this "detour" through degrees? You would get a much more accurate answer since you just ignored the decimal part of the degree measure.

I see ,its just the way I was shown ,

I thought 143.1301024 would be rounded up to 143 degrees is this not correct ?

$\frac{143\pi}{180}$ = 2.49582083

and 143.1301024 x $\pi$ = 449.6564782 and when divided by 180 to get radians =2.498091546 would It not be deemed at the same answer when rounded up to 2.5 for example

can you show me how you would have gone about this ? thanks
 
Last edited:
fordy2707 said:
can you show me how you would have gone about this ? thanks

first, it helps to visualize the two angles between $0$ and $2\pi$ where the cosine value is $-0.8$

Note that angles with a negative value for cosine are in quadrants II and III. In the attached diagram, the terminal sides of angles $\theta$ and $\phi$ intersect the unit circle at $x = -0.8$

The inverse cosine function on your calculator will yield angle values in quadrant I for positive values of cosine, and in quadrant II for negative values of cosine. So, if you type $\cos^{-1}(-0.8)$ into your calculator (in radian mode), the calculator will output $\approx 2.4981$ radians, which is the radian measure for angle $\theta$ in the diagram. You may want to use the "store" feature of your calculator to keep the more accurate approximate value.

To get angle $\phi$ in quadrant III, calculate $2\pi - \cos^{-1}(-0.8) \approx 3.7851$ radians

Now all you have to do is add $2\pi$ and $4\pi$ to both $\theta$ and $\phi$ to get all six angles in the interval $(0,6\pi)$ where the cosine's value is $-0.8$View attachment 5953
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top