B Weird Tangent Property - Is It Coincidence?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the observation that for angles between 0 and 90 degrees, tan(90-10^n) approximates 5.7296*10^(-n+1) for certain values of n. It is noted that this approximation works well for negative values of n and somewhat for n=1, but fails for n=0 and larger values. The approximation is linked to the Taylor series for cotangent, suggesting that as n decreases, the approximation improves due to the nature of the series. Participants express curiosity about the pattern and its implications, with some suggesting it may not be mere coincidence. The conversation concludes with a recognition that the relationship is likely significant rather than accidental.
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 calculater. 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 calculater. 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 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 calculater 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

Back
Top