Weird Tangent Property - Is It Coincidence?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Andreas C
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Property Tangent Weird
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical observation regarding the tangent function, specifically the relationship between the tangent of angles close to 90 degrees and a proposed approximation involving powers of ten. Participants explore whether this relationship is coincidental or has a deeper mathematical basis, including potential connections to Taylor series expansions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that for angles between 0 and 90 degrees, tan(90-10^n) approximately equals 5.7296*10^(-n+1), questioning if this is a coincidence.
  • Another participant notes that the approximation does not hold for n=0 and n=1, suggesting it may not be worth pursuing further.
  • Some participants confirm that the approximation seems to work for n=1 but not for n=0, and express skepticism about its validity for negative values of n.
  • Concerns are raised about the nature of the tangent function, with one participant arguing that most values of tan are irrational, while the proposed approximation yields rational numbers for integral n.
  • One participant suggests that the approximation might relate to the Taylor series for cotangent, providing a detailed derivation and noting that as n decreases, the approximation improves.
  • Another participant agrees with the Taylor series connection and discusses how decreasing n affects the approximation's accuracy.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the validity of the approximation and its applicability across different values of n.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express mixed views on the validity of the proposed approximation. While some find it works for specific values of n, others challenge its general applicability and raise concerns about its rationality. The discussion remains unresolved regarding whether the observed pattern is coincidental or has a mathematical basis.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the range of n for which the approximation holds, as well as the dependence on whether angles are considered in degrees or radians. The discussion also highlights the potential for irrational values of the tangent function, complicating the proposed relationship.

Andreas C
Messages
196
Reaction score
20
I'm sure that I am not the first one to notice this, but I found that for angles between 0 and 90 degrees, tan(90-10^n) approximately equals 5.7296*10^(-n+1). Is that purely a coincidence?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
for n= 0 it does not work. For n= 1 also it does not sorry this is not worth pursuing.
 
Well, that worked for n=1 approximately
in my calculator. Didn't work for n=0. Those two were the only positive values I could try. I can say without calculating that it won't work for negative values of n. Tried n=1.5 but, no. Can you tell that for which values is it working?
 
In general it cannot be true as most values of tan will be irrational and the right side of your hypothesis will give you a rational number for integral values of n!
 
Prem1998 said:
Well, that worked for n=1 approximately
in my calculator. Didn't work for n=0. Those two were the only positive values I could try. I can say without calculating that it won't work for negative values of n. Tried n=1.5 but, no. Can you tell that for which values is it working?
It almost works for n=1, it works sort of for n=0 and works very well for any negative value of n. I made a mistake, I meant that it equals 5.7*10^(-n+1). Sorry about that.
 
Let'sthink said:
In general it cannot be true as most values of tan will be irrational and the right side of your hypothesis will give you a rational number for integral values of n!

It's an approximation, of course they are irrational.
 
Andreas C said:
It almost works for n=1, it works sort of for n=0 and works very well for any negative value of n. I made a mistake, I meant that it equals 5.7*10^(-n+1). Sorry about that.
Sure you didn't mean ##\tan(90° - 10^{-n}) \approx 5.7_3 \cdot 10^{n+1}\; \;(n \in \mathbb{N})\;##?
 
I'm guessing it has something to do with the Taylor series.
$$\tan(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta) = \cot \theta$$
The Taylor series for cotangent is:
$$\cot \theta = \frac{1}{\theta} - \frac{1}{3}\theta - \frac{1}{45}\theta^3 + \cdots$$
I'm assuming you were working in degrees instead of radians, so we have to convert ##10^n## to radians:
$$\theta = \frac{10^n\pi}{180}$$
Plugging this back in:
$$\cot(\frac{10^n\pi}{180}) = \frac{180}{10^n\pi} - \frac{10^n\pi}{3\times 180} - \cdots$$
For ##n=1##, we have:
$$\cot(\frac{\pi}{18}) \approx \frac{18}{\pi} \approx 5.73$$
Because of the functional form of the series (with a ##1/\theta## term out front), as ##\theta## gets smaller, the first term in the series becomes a better and better approximation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Igael and fresh_42
Andreas C said:
It almost works for n=1, it works sort of for n=0 and works very well for any negative value of n. I made a mistake, I meant that it equals 5.7*10^(-n+1). Sorry about that.
I don't know if this is a co-incidence but I had noticed the same pattern a few days ago when I was plugging in 89, 89.9, 89.99, 89.999 etc in my calculator to notice the changes in values of tanx. And, every time the same digits appeared that you've written with the decimal point displaced. I ignored it and didn't take the trouble of making a formula. It might be a co-incidence that you're uploading this today.
I don't know how this is working. But, it's an approximation mostly for negative values of n and so, it works for a very small range. There are only two non-negative values values of n we can try.
 
  • #11
fresh_42 said:
Sure you didn't mean ##\tan(90° - 10^{-n}) \approx 5.7_3 \cdot 10^{n+1}\; \;(n \in \mathbb{N})\;##?

It's pretty much the same. But yours is a bit more rigorous, so I guess it's better. Although it also works for 80 degrees (n=-1 in your definition).
 
  • #12
TeethWhitener said:
I'm guessing it has something to do with the Taylor series.
$$\tan(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta) = \cot \theta$$
The Taylor series for cotangent is:
$$\cot \theta = \frac{1}{\theta} - \frac{1}{3}\theta - \frac{1}{45}\theta^3 + \cdots$$
I'm assuming you were working in degrees instead of radians, so we have to convert ##10^n## to radians:
$$\theta = \frac{10^n\pi}{180}$$
Plugging this back in:
$$\cot(\frac{10^n\pi}{180}) = \frac{180}{10^n\pi} - \frac{10^n\pi}{3\times 180} - \cdots$$
For ##n=1##, we have:
$$\cot(\frac{\pi}{18}) \approx \frac{18}{\pi} \approx 5.73$$
Because of the functional form of the series (with a ##1/\theta## term out front), as ##\theta## gets smaller, the first term in the series becomes a better and better approximation.

That's really interesting! So by decreasing n by one, we essentially multiply the first term by 10, and make the other ones smaller, so they get more insignificant. So the closer n gets to minus infinity, the better an approximation it is. That's good to know, stuff like that does not tend to be coincidental.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K