Solving Unsolved Trig Identity: sum[0 to x](sin(x))=180 * sin(x/2)^2 + sin(x)/2

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a newly discovered trigonometric identity related to the summation of sine functions, specifically the equation sum[0 to x](sin(x))=180 * sin(x/2)^2 + sin(x)/2, where x is in degrees. The original poster seeks to understand if this identity aligns with any known trigonometric rules, as they have not found a match in existing literature. Contributors clarify the notation and suggest that the conjecture can be expressed more clearly, while also providing a proof using complex numbers and geometric series. The conversation highlights the importance of careful notation and the potential for extending the identity to real numbers, ultimately confirming the identity's validity.
crash_matrix
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,
I stumbled on an interesting and unexpected identity when looking for a simpler summation technique for inverse kinementics. Basically, I was trying to find a simpler way of summing IK vectors for some particular armature (like a tentacle or multi-branch armature on a robot). This question doesn't have to do with IK, but I accidentally calculated an identity rule I've not been able to attach to any other identity rule in trigonometry. This is the XPlore code that graphs the identity:
[The trig set is in degrees, not radians]
f(x)=sum(sin(t),t=0 to x step 1)
(Period,C)=(180,f(180))
g(x)=C*sin(x/2)^2+sin(x)/2
graph((f(x),g(x)),x=0 to Period)

When running those lines in XPlore (or any graphing calculator), you'll find that as the "step" value in the first line approaches zero, the two curves become equal. I've tested this rule across hundreds of different data sets and it always diverges perfectly, regarless of the precision of the calculator.
My question is: Is there an existing trig identity or rule (or set of iedntities or rules) that explains why the above functional set works?
Basically the "law" that it asserts is:
sum[0 to x](sin(x))=180 * sin(x/2)*sin(x/2) + sin(x)/2
where x is in degrees

I've looked up every trig and calculus identity and "rule" that I can find and I can't match it to anything.
It's not an important question, just something that's been bugging me for a while.

Thanks for looking,
--CM
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
crash_matrix said:
sum[0 to x](sin(x))=180 * sin(x/2)*sin(x/2) + sin(x)/2
where x is in degrees

Didn't you mean f(180), instead of 180, above? f(180) being the sum[t=0 to 180](sin(t)).

Also, to avoid confusing the two meanings of 'x', you may want to express the left-hand side as sum[t=0 to x](sin(t)) ; 'x' is the limit of the sum, not really the argument to sin().

The x's in the right-hand side are correct, as they mean the same value of 'x' as the limit of the sum in the left-hand side.

So, if I get you right, the conjecture is\sum_{t=0}^x \sin t = \left( \sum_{t=0}^{180} \sin t \right) \sin^2(x/2) + (\sin x)/2with the arguments in degrees, not radians.

The two overlapping curves (left-hand side, right-hand side) looking like this, for x=0 to 180:
http://205.196.120.39/598b993ef2cba10162b685226796555be3a77674f71a36dcbc42144e3185d7bd5g.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hi,

sum[0 to x](sin(x))=180 * sin(x/2)*sin(x/2) + sin(x)/2
I'm guessing you meant :
sum[k=0 to x](sin(k))=f(180)*sin(x/2)*sin(x/2) + sin(x)/2

If you're interested in a proof, here you go.

Let x \in \mathbb R, n \in \mathbb N.
I'll be using radians instead of degrees, so I'll show that we have :
\sum_{k=0}^n \sin k = f(\pi) \sin^2\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right)+\dfrac{\sin x}{2}
Where : f(n) = \displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^n \sin k (NB: that expression isn't yet defined on all real numbers and more particularly on n=\pi, but it will be as soon as we get another expression of it).


We have :
f(n) = \sum_{k=0}^n \text{Im}(e^{ik}) = \text{Im}\left(\sum_{k=0}^n e^{ik}\right) = \text{Im}\left(\sum_{k=0}^n (e^{i})^k\right)
And since e^i \neq 1, applying the formula for the sum of a geometric sequence gives :

f(n) = \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{(e^i)^{n+1}-1}{e^i-1}\right) = \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{e^{i(n+1)}-1}{e^i-1}\right)
By applying half angle formulas :

f(n) = \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{e^{i(n+1)/2}\cdot 2i\sin\left(\dfrac{n+1}{2}\right)}{e^{i/2}\cdot 2i\sin(1/2)}\right)

After simplifying we finally get :

f(n) = \dfrac{\sin\left(\dfrac{n+1}{2}\right) \sin\left(\dfrac{n}{2}\right)}{\sin\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)}

That's a quite "simple" expression that only uses products, that naturally extends f(n) to real numbers. I'll now show that the quantity f(x) is exactly equal to f(\pi) \sin^2\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right) + \dfrac{\sin x}{2} for all x \in \mathbb R.

According to the expression of f(x) obtained above, we have :
f(\pi) = \dfrac{\sin\left(\dfrac{\pi+1}{2}\right) }{\sin\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)} = \dfrac{\cos\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)}{\sin\left( \dfrac{1}{2}\right)}

Thus :
f(\pi) \sin^2\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right) + \dfrac{\sin x}{2} = \dfrac{\cos\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)\sin^2\left( \dfrac{x}{2}\right) }{\sin\left( \dfrac{1}{2}\right)}+\dfrac{\sin x}{2} = \\ \dfrac{2\cos\left( \dfrac{1}{2}\right)\sin^2\left( \dfrac{x}{2}\right) + \sin\left( \dfrac{1}{2}\right)\left[2\sin\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right)\cos\left( \dfrac{x}{2}\right)\right]}{2\sin\left( \dfrac{1}{2}\right)} = \\\dfrac{\sin\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right)\left[\cos\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right) \sin\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right) + \sin\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)\cos\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right)\right]}{\sin\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)} = \\\dfrac{\sin\left(\dfrac{x}{2}\right) \sin\left(\dfrac{x+1}{2}\right)}{\sin\left(\dfrac{1}{2}\right)} = f(x)

You just need to change from radians to degrees and it's done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sachav said:
We have :
f(n) = \sum_{k=0}^n \text{Im}(e^{ik}) = \text{Im}\left(\sum_{k=0}^n e^{ik}\right) = \text{Im}\left(\sum_{k=0}^n (e^{i})^k\right)
And since e^i \neq 1, applying the formula for the sum of a geometric sequence gives :

f(n) = \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{(e^i)^{n+1}-1}{e^i-1}\right) = \text{Im}\left(\dfrac{e^{i(n+1)}-1}{e^i-1}\right)
This is a good one, congrats... I was scratching my head on how to treat these sums.

Edit:
On second thought, the technique is beautiful but there has to be an error here. \sum_{k=0}^n \text{Im}(e^{ik}) is not the same as \sum_{k=0}^n \text{Im}(e^{ik \pi/180}), which was what the OP had in mind, regardless of whether you later extend the definition for a real n: "mind the step" !

Edit2:
Ah, you already said that. "You just need to change from radians to degrees and it's done." - i.e. Repeat the proof, this time with a pi/180 multiplier. When will I learn to read posts to the end.
 
Last edited:
So, if I followed right, you end up with<br /> f(n) = \frac{\sin\left(\frac{\pi n}{360}\right) \sin\left(\frac{\pi(n+1)}{360}\right)}<br /> {\sin\left(\frac{\pi}{360}\right)}<br />which, after expanding the sum of sines, and using a half-angle formula again, ends up in<br /> f(n) = \frac{\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi n}{360}\right)}{\tan\left(\frac{\pi}{360}\right)}<br /> + \frac{\sin\left(\frac{\pi n}{180}\right)}2<br />so that<br /> f(180) = \frac 1 {\tan\left(\frac{\pi}{360}\right)}<br />from which the conjecture<br /> f(n) = f(180) \sin^2(\pi n/360) + (\sin \pi n/180)/2<br />follows.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top