Sum-to-Product Identity for Multiple Cosine Functions

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter elfboy
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the sum-to-product identities for multiple cosine functions, specifically exploring the equation cos(ax) + cos(bx) + cos(cx) = 0. Participants examine the existence of closed-form solutions for various combinations of cosine functions and the implications of these identities in mathematical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that cos(ax) = 0 has a closed form solution, as does cos(ax) + cos(bx) = 0, but express doubt about the existence of a closed form for cos(ax) + cos(bx) + cos(cx) = 0.
  • One participant suggests that the roots of cos(ax) + cos(bx) = 0 can be derived by manipulating the cosine functions, indicating that the two cosines are out of phase.
  • Another participant notes that Wikipedia lacks identities for the sum-to-product transformation involving three cosine functions.
  • There is a proposal to express cos(bx) + cos(cx) in terms of cos(ax) and to derive relationships between a, b, and c based on the equation.
  • One participant challenges the validity of substituting values from one equation into another, arguing that it leads to trivial identities rather than addressing the original question.
  • Another participant agrees that the question pertains to finding solutions for cos(ax) + cos(bx) + cos(cx) = 0 in terms of a, b, and c.
  • There is mention of a derived expression involving cos(a+b+c) and other cosine terms, but it is noted that it does not yield a straightforward sum-to-product identity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of closed-form solutions for the equation involving three cosine functions. While some agree on the solutions for two cosines, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the three-cosine case, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight ambiguities in the original question and the mathematical steps involved in deriving relationships between the variables. There are unresolved aspects regarding the application of identities and the conditions under which certain substitutions are valid.

elfboy
Messages
92
Reaction score
1
The equation cos(ax)=0 has a closed form solution in terms of x

so does cos(ax)+cos(bx)=0

but I am sure that cos(ax)+cos(bx)+cos(cx)=0 does not

I first encountered this problem back in late 2003 and began working on it again
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
elfboy said:
so does cos(ax)+cos(bx)=0

Those two cos's are exactly out of phase (to cancel like that) so

[tex]ax = bx +(2n+1)\frac{\pi}{2}[/tex]
 
Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any identities for triple-cosine-sum-to-product
 
elfboy said:
The equation cos(ax)=0 has a closed form solution in terms of x

so does cos(ax)+cos(bx)=0

but I am sure that cos(ax)+cos(bx)+cos(cx)=0 does not

I first encountered this problem back in late 2003 and began working on it again

To clarify, when you say it has a closed form solution in terms of x, it seems like you're asking if given any x we can find a,b,c such that the equation is satisfied. Surely, you do not mean that since that problem is simple. I'm guessing you're asking it it is possible to find a,b, and c such that the equation holds for all x?
 
Your question seemed a bit ambiguous to me, so I hope this is what you are asking for:

We start off with:

Cos(ax) + Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) = 0

Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) = -Cos(ax)

ArcCos[Cos(bx) + Cos(cx)] = ArcCos[-Cos(ax)]

Looking at the right side of the equation after taking the inverse Cos, it will be 180 - ax. It will be 180 - ax because the Cosine there is negative. Now, we want to write the sum of the Cosines on the left side as a single Cosine so we can take the inverse of it and get rid of Cosine all together. We can rewrite:

Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) as Cos(ax)

We can do this because the right side of the equation, before taking the inverse Cosine, is -Cos(ax). The left side must be the additive inverse of this, and so must be Cos(ax). However, the left side is Cos(bx) + Cos(cx), which means that Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) must be the additive inverse of -Cos(ax), which is Cos(ax).

So now, we have

ArcCos[Cos(ax)] = 180 - ax

ax = 180 - ax
2ax = 180
a = 90/x

So, we now know a can be written as 90/x.

Let's substitute that into the original equation:

Cos(ax) + Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) = 0
Cos( 90/x * x) + Cos(bx) Cos(cx) = 0
Cos(90) + Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) = 0

But Cos90 = 0, so:

Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) = 0
Cos(bx) = -Cos(cx)
ArcCos[Cos(bx)] = ArcCos[-Cos(cx)]
bx = 180 - cx
bx + cx = 180
x(b+c) = 180
b+c = 180/x

So, we now have two equations:

a = 90/x

and

b + c = 180/x

So, pick any value of x, substitute it into the first equation, you will get a value for a. Substitute a value for x into the second equation, then pick values of b and c to satisfy that equation and you will your values for a, b, c, and x that will satisfy your original equation (as long as x does not equal 0).

I hope that is what you were asking for, and sorry if the format is hard to follow. I don't know how to use math symbols on the computer.
 
Last edited:
I think what elfboy is asking for is a closed-form expression for the set of all x that satisfy the equation, given some a, b and c. For a single cosine, this is trivial: it's just the set of all integer multiples of [itex]\frac{\pi}{a}[/itex]. For a sum of two cosines, you can apply a trig identity to get a product of two cosines, and then apply the same reasoning as before to each one. This gives the solution as all integer multiples of either [itex]\frac{2\pi}{a+b}[/itex] or [itex]\frac{2\pi}{a-b}[/itex]. For the case of three cosines, it's not so obvious, at least when [itex]c \neq 0[/itex]...
 
JG89 said:
Looking at the right side of the equation after taking the inverse Cos, it will be 180 - ax. It will be 180 - ax because the Cosine there is negative. Now, we want to write the sum of the Cosines on the left side as a single Cosine so we can take the inverse of it and get rid of Cosine all together. We can rewrite:

Cos(bx) + Cos(cx) as Cos(ax)
No, you can't substitute a value from one equation into itself. You will get:
Cosbx+Coscx=-cosax
-cosax=-cosax
0=0
Im not sure though that understand what you mean, but anyway what you have done is not the answer the the thread starters question. I think he's question was:
Given real numbers a,b and c, find the solution of
Cosax+Cosbx+Coscx=0
in terms of a,b and c.
 
Kurret said:
No, you can't substitute a value from one equation into itself. You will get:
Cosbx+Coscx=-cosax
-cosax=-cosax
0=0
Im not sure though that understand what you mean, but anyway what you have done is not the answer the the thread starters question. I think he's question was:
Given real numbers a,b and c, find the solution of
Cosax+Cosbx+Coscx=0
in terms of a,b and c.
In that part I'm not substituting a value from one equation into itself. I am saying that the left side must be the additive inverse of the right side in this situation, so we can rewrite Cos(ax) + Cos(bx) as Cos(ax). The two equations I came up with work in any situation, except where x = 0.

But I'm not 100% sure I properly answered the threadmakers question, I agree with you there. Any input from the thread maker?
 
Last edited:
quadraphonics said:
I think what elfboy is asking for is a closed-form expression for the set of all x that satisfy the equation, given some a, b and c. ..
thats right

The cos(ax)+cos(bx)=0 roots can be derived by adding cos(ax+bx) and cos(ax-bx)

but the expanded form of cos(ax+bx+cx) doesn't yield a sum-to-product identity as the case above does.

the closest I have gotten is:

cos(a+b+c)+cos(a)+cos(b)+cos(c)=4*cos((b+c)/2)*cos((a+b)/2)*cos((a+c)/2)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K