How to prove that $limlimits_{xto0}frac{sin x}x=1$?
$begingroup$
How can one prove the statement
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x=1$$
without using the Taylor series of $sin$, $cos$ and $tan$? Best would be a geometrical solution.
This is homework. In my math class, we are about to prove that $sin$ is continuous. We found out, that proving the above statement is enough for proving the continuity of $sin$, but I can't find out how. Any help is appreciated.
calculus limits trigonometry proof-explanation limits-without-lhopital
$endgroup$
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
How can one prove the statement
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x=1$$
without using the Taylor series of $sin$, $cos$ and $tan$? Best would be a geometrical solution.
This is homework. In my math class, we are about to prove that $sin$ is continuous. We found out, that proving the above statement is enough for proving the continuity of $sin$, but I can't find out how. Any help is appreciated.
calculus limits trigonometry proof-explanation limits-without-lhopital
$endgroup$
49
$begingroup$
l'Hôpital's rule is easiest: $limlimits_{xto0}sin x = 0$ and $limlimits_{xto0}x = 0$, so $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x = limlimits_{xto 0}frac{cos x}1 = 1 $
$endgroup$
– Joren
Oct 23 '11 at 20:41
140
$begingroup$
@Joren: I'm extremely curious how will you prove then that $sin ' x = cos x$
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 9:10
3
$begingroup$
@FUZx44xl: sure, but to be fare you first prove that $sin xsim x$ with $xto 0$. Geometrically
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 15:42
11
$begingroup$
Recent changes in what? The definition of $lim$, of $sin$ or of $0$?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 18 '13 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl:Exactly what was your definition by "geometrical means"?
$endgroup$
– Platonix
Dec 22 '13 at 18:45
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
How can one prove the statement
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x=1$$
without using the Taylor series of $sin$, $cos$ and $tan$? Best would be a geometrical solution.
This is homework. In my math class, we are about to prove that $sin$ is continuous. We found out, that proving the above statement is enough for proving the continuity of $sin$, but I can't find out how. Any help is appreciated.
calculus limits trigonometry proof-explanation limits-without-lhopital
$endgroup$
How can one prove the statement
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x=1$$
without using the Taylor series of $sin$, $cos$ and $tan$? Best would be a geometrical solution.
This is homework. In my math class, we are about to prove that $sin$ is continuous. We found out, that proving the above statement is enough for proving the continuity of $sin$, but I can't find out how. Any help is appreciated.
calculus limits trigonometry proof-explanation limits-without-lhopital
calculus limits trigonometry proof-explanation limits-without-lhopital
edited Feb 4 '18 at 18:19
Michael Hardy
1
1
asked Oct 23 '11 at 16:21
FUZxxlFUZxxl
3,75552142
3,75552142
49
$begingroup$
l'Hôpital's rule is easiest: $limlimits_{xto0}sin x = 0$ and $limlimits_{xto0}x = 0$, so $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x = limlimits_{xto 0}frac{cos x}1 = 1 $
$endgroup$
– Joren
Oct 23 '11 at 20:41
140
$begingroup$
@Joren: I'm extremely curious how will you prove then that $sin ' x = cos x$
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 9:10
3
$begingroup$
@FUZx44xl: sure, but to be fare you first prove that $sin xsim x$ with $xto 0$. Geometrically
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 15:42
11
$begingroup$
Recent changes in what? The definition of $lim$, of $sin$ or of $0$?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 18 '13 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl:Exactly what was your definition by "geometrical means"?
$endgroup$
– Platonix
Dec 22 '13 at 18:45
|
show 10 more comments
49
$begingroup$
l'Hôpital's rule is easiest: $limlimits_{xto0}sin x = 0$ and $limlimits_{xto0}x = 0$, so $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x = limlimits_{xto 0}frac{cos x}1 = 1 $
$endgroup$
– Joren
Oct 23 '11 at 20:41
140
$begingroup$
@Joren: I'm extremely curious how will you prove then that $sin ' x = cos x$
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 9:10
3
$begingroup$
@FUZx44xl: sure, but to be fare you first prove that $sin xsim x$ with $xto 0$. Geometrically
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 15:42
11
$begingroup$
Recent changes in what? The definition of $lim$, of $sin$ or of $0$?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 18 '13 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl:Exactly what was your definition by "geometrical means"?
$endgroup$
– Platonix
Dec 22 '13 at 18:45
49
49
$begingroup$
l'Hôpital's rule is easiest: $limlimits_{xto0}sin x = 0$ and $limlimits_{xto0}x = 0$, so $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x = limlimits_{xto 0}frac{cos x}1 = 1 $
$endgroup$
– Joren
Oct 23 '11 at 20:41
$begingroup$
l'Hôpital's rule is easiest: $limlimits_{xto0}sin x = 0$ and $limlimits_{xto0}x = 0$, so $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x = limlimits_{xto 0}frac{cos x}1 = 1 $
$endgroup$
– Joren
Oct 23 '11 at 20:41
140
140
$begingroup$
@Joren: I'm extremely curious how will you prove then that $sin ' x = cos x$
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 9:10
$begingroup$
@Joren: I'm extremely curious how will you prove then that $sin ' x = cos x$
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 9:10
3
3
$begingroup$
@FUZx44xl: sure, but to be fare you first prove that $sin xsim x$ with $xto 0$. Geometrically
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 15:42
$begingroup$
@FUZx44xl: sure, but to be fare you first prove that $sin xsim x$ with $xto 0$. Geometrically
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 15:42
11
11
$begingroup$
Recent changes in what? The definition of $lim$, of $sin$ or of $0$?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 18 '13 at 20:03
$begingroup$
Recent changes in what? The definition of $lim$, of $sin$ or of $0$?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 18 '13 at 20:03
2
2
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl:Exactly what was your definition by "geometrical means"?
$endgroup$
– Platonix
Dec 22 '13 at 18:45
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl:Exactly what was your definition by "geometrical means"?
$endgroup$
– Platonix
Dec 22 '13 at 18:45
|
show 10 more comments
22 Answers
22
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The area of $triangle ABC$ is $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$. The area of the colored wedge is $frac{1}{2}x$, and the area of $triangle ABD$ is $frac{1}{2}tan(x)$. By inclusion, we get
$$
frac{1}{2}tan(x)gefrac{1}{2}xgefrac{1}{2}sin(x)tag{1}
$$
Dividing $(1)$ by $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$ and taking reciprocals, we get
$$
cos(x)lefrac{sin(x)}{x}le1tag{2}
$$
Since $frac{sin(x)}{x}$ and $cos(x)$ are even functions, $(2)$ is valid for any non-zero $x$ between $-frac{pi}{2}$ and $frac{pi}{2}$. Furthermore, since $cos(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $cos(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1tag{3}
$$
Also, dividing $(2)$ by $cos(x)$, we get that
$$
1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}lesec(x)tag{4}
$$
Since $sec(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $sec(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag{5}
$$
$endgroup$
70
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
3
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
45
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
22
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
|
show 23 more comments
$begingroup$
You should first prove that for $x > 0$ small that $sin x < x < tan x$. Then, dividing by $x$ you get
$$
{ sin x over x} < 1
$$
and rearranging $1 < {tan x over x} = {sin x over x cos x }$
$$
cos x < {sin x over x}.
$$
Taking $x rightarrow 0^+$ you apply the squeeze theorem. For $x < 0$ and small use that $sin(-x) = -sin x$ so that $${sin(-x) over -x} = {sin x over x}.$$
As far as why the first inequality I said is true, you can do this completely from triangles but I don't know how to draw the pictures here.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
2
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
9
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
2
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Usually calculus textbooks do this using geometric arguments followed by squeezing.
Here's an Euler-esque way of looking at it---not a "proof" as that term is usually understood today, but still worth knowing about.
Let $theta$ be the length of an arc along the circle of unit radius centered at $(0,0)$, from the point $(1,0)$ in a counterclockwise direction to some point $(costheta,sintheta)$ on the circle. Then of course $sintheta$ is the height of the latter point above the $x$-axis. Now imagine what happens if $theta$ is an infinitely small positive number. Then the arc is just an infinitely short vertical line, and the height of the endpoint above the $x$-axis is just the length of the arc. I.e. when $theta$ is an infinitely small number, then $sintheta$ is the same as $theta$. It follows that when $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number, then $dfrac{sintheta}{theta}=1$.
That is how Euler viewed the matter. See his book on differential calculus.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
1
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
1
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Look at this link:
http://fatosmatematicos.blogspot.com/2010/08/provas-sem-palavras-parte-20.html
Here is the picture I copied from that blog:
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
11
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here you may see an elementary approach that starts from a very interesting result, see this problem. All you need is a bit of imagination. When we take $lim_{nrightarrowinfty} frac{nsin(frac{pi}{n})}{1+sin(frac{pi}{n})}$ we may notice that we have infinitely many circles surrounding the unit circle with infinitely small diameters that lastly perfectly approximate the length of the unit circle when having it there infinity times . Therefore when multiplying n by the radius under the limit to infinity we get π. Let's denote $frac{pi}{n}$ by x.
$$lim_{xrightarrow0}frac{pisin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}={pi}Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}=1Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1$$
The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I claim that for $0<x<pi/2$ that the following holds
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
In the diagram, we let $OC=OA=1$. In other words, $Arc:CA=x$ is an arc of a unit circle. The shortest distance from point $C$ to line $AO$ is line $CE=sin x$ (because $CEperp OA$). Another path from point $C$ to line $OA$ is arc $CA$ (which is longer than CE because it is not the shortest path). So we have at the very least
$$sin x lt x$$
Now we need to show that line $BA=tan x gt x$.
Lines $AD$ and $CD$ are both tangent to arc $CA$. $CD+DA$ is longer than arc $CA$ because the set of points bound by sector $OCA$ is a subset of the set of points bound by quadrilateral $OCDA$, both of which are convex sets. This means that the perimeter of quadrilateral $OCDA$ must be longer than the perimeter of the sector $OCA$ (as per Archimedes, On the Sphere and Cylinder Book I). But both the sector and the quadrilateral both have sides $OC$ and $OA$, so we have
$$CA=x<DC+DA$$
But $BD>CD$ because it is the hypotenuse in $triangle BCD$ we have
$$tan x = BA = BD+DAgt CD+DA gt CA=x gt sin x$$
So we have
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1 lt frac{tan x}{x}=frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
From this we can extract
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
and
$$1 lt frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x}$$
Putting these inequalities back together we have
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
Because $displaystylelim_{xto 0}cos x = 1$, by the squeeze theorem we have
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
2
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
2
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
2
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure if it counts as proof, but I have seen this done by a High Schooler.
In the given picture above,
$displaystyle 2n text{ EJ} = 2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = text{ perimeter of polygon }$.
$displaystyle lim_{nto infty }2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = lim_{nto infty } (text{ perimeter of polygon }) = 2 pi R implies lim_{nto infty}frac{sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right )}{left( frac{pi}{n } right )} = 1$ and let $frac{pi}{n} = x$.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
3
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't you feel strange about why most of the proofs are done with a figure? I've had this problem in the beginning, and realized after that this is due to the definition we use for the function $sin x$. Because the usual definition of $sin x$ we all study first in high schools depends on “classical geometry” and usually with a figure, you should depict out the figure and to make it clear.
However, if you use other definitions of $sin x$ that are equivalent to the former, you'll find it more simple. For example,
$$sin x = frac{x^1}{1!} - frac{x^3}{3!}+ frac{x^5}{5!} - cdots + cdots - cdots$$
and hence
$$frac{sin x}x = frac{x^0}{1!} - frac{x^2}{3!}+ frac{x^4}{5!} - cdots$$
which obviously tends to $1$ as $x$ approaches 0.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
2
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
3
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one more:
$$
lim_{x to 0} frac{sin x}{x}=lim_{x to 0} lim_{v to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}\
=lim_{v to 0} lim_{x to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}=lim_{v to 0}sin'v=lim_{v to 0} cos v=1
$$
$endgroup$
32
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It depends on your definition of the sine function. I would suggest checking out the geometric proof in ProofWiki.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The strategy is to find $frac{darcsin y}{dy}$ first. This can easily be done using the picture below.
From the above picture, $arcsin y$ is twice the area of the orange bit. The area of the red bit is ${1 over 2}ysqrt{1-y^2}$. The area of the red bit plus the orange bit is $int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY$. So $$arcsin y = 2int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY - ysqrt{1-y^2}.$$ Differentiating with respect to $y$ gives $frac{darcsin y}{dy} = frac{1}{sqrt{1-y^2}}$. Using the theorem for the derivative of inverse functions yields $sin' theta = sqrt{1 - sin^2 theta} = cos theta$.
(A similar thing can be done with the arc length definition of $arcsin$.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f:{yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}tomathbb{R}$ be a function defined by $f(x):=dfrac{sin x}{x}$ for all $xin {yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}$.
We have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$ if and only if for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a $delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Let $varepsilon>0$ be an arbitrary real number.
Note that $sin x=displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$.
If $x neq 0$, we have $dfrac{sin x}{x}=$$displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}=1+$$displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$.
We thus have
$|f(x)-1|=left|dfrac{sin x}{x}-1right|=left|displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq left|displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|$
Therefore we have
$|f(x)-1|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty} |x^{2n}|=sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$
If $0<|x|<1$, then $0<|x^2|<1$, and the infinite series $displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$ converges to $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}$.
Choose $delta:=sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}$.
Then $0<|x-0|<delta$ implies that $0<|x|<$$sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}<1$, and hence $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$. But $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$ implies that $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}<varepsilon$.
We therefore have $sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$. But since $|f(x)-1|leqdisplaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$, we have $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a different approach that uses the integral definition of the arcsine function. We will deduce the limit of interest without appeal to geometry or differential calculus.
Instead, we only rely on elementary analysis of continuous functions and their inverses along with simple properties of the Riemann integral. To that end, we now proceed.
We define the sine function, $sin(x)$, as the inverse function of the function $f(x)$ given by
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{f(x)=int_0^x frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}},dt }tag 1$$
for $|x|< 1$.
NOTE: It can be shown that the sine function defined as the inverse of $f(x)$ given in $(1)$ has all of the familiar properties that characterize the circular function $sin(x)$.
It is straightforward to show that since $frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}}$ is positive and continuous for $tin (-1,1)$, $f(x)$ is continuous and strictly increasing for $xin (-1,1)$ with $displaystylelim_{xto 0}f(x)=f(0)=0$.
Therefore, since $f$ is continuous and strictly increasing, its inverse function, $sin(x)$, exists and is also continuous and strictly increasing with $displaystyle lim_{xto 0}sin(x)=sin(0)=0$.
From $(1)$, we have the bounds (SEE HERE)
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{1 le frac{f(x)}xle frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}} tag 2$$
for $xin (-1,1)$, whence applying the squeeze theorem to $(2)$ yields
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{f(x)}{x}=1 tag 3$$
Finally, let $y=f(x)$ so that $x=sin(y)$. As $xto 0$, $yto 0$ and we can write $(3)$ as
$$lim_{yto 0}frac{y}{sin(y)}=1$$
from which we have
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{lim_{yto 0}frac{sin(y)}{y}=1}$$
as was to be shown!
NOTE:
We can deduce the following set of useful inequalities from $(2)$. We let $x=sin(theta)$ and restrict $x$ so that $xin [0,1)$. In addition, we define new functions, $cos(theta)=sqrt{1-sin^2(theta)}$ and $tan(theta)=sin(theta)/cos(theta)$.
Then, we have from $(2)$
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{ycos(y)le sin(y)le yle tan(y)} $$
which are the familiar inequalities often introduced in an introductory geometry or trigonometry course.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
1
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
1
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
1
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
1
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Because $sin x$ has zeroes at $x=n pi$ for arbitrary integer $n$ including $x=0$, you can use Vieta's Theorem $sin x = A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)x(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots)$ with a constant $A$. Because $sin(frac{pi}{2})=1$ this constant can be determined by the equation: $$1=A(cdots(frac{pi}{2}+2 pi)(frac{pi}{2}+pi)frac{pi}{2}(frac{pi}{2}-pi)(frac{pi}{2}-2 pi)cdots).$$
Now, in the Expression $f(x):= frac{sin(x)}{x}$ the $x$ cancels such that $$f(x)=A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots),$$ hence: $$lim_{x rightarrow 0} f(x)=A(cdots(2 pi) cdot picdot(- pi)cdot(-2 pi)cdots) = A prod_{k=1}^infty (-k^2 pi^2).$$
$frac{1}{A} = frac{pi}{2} prod_{k=1}^infty ((frac{pi}{2})^2-k^2 pi^2)$. The proof is completed when the Wallis product is used.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
2
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Usual proofs can be circular, but there is a simple way for proving such inequality.
Let $theta$ be an acute angle and let $O,A,B,C,D,C'$ as in the following diagram:
We may show that:
$$ CD stackrel{(1)}{ geq };stackrel{largefrown}{CB}; stackrel{(2)}{geq } CB,stackrel{(3)}{geq} AB $$
$(1)$: The quadrilateral $OCDC'$ and the circle sector delimited by $O,C,C'$ are two convex sets. Since the circle sector is a subset of the quadrilateral, the perimeter of the circle sector is less than the perimeter of the quadrilateral.
$(2)$: the $CB$ segment is the shortest path between $B$ and $C$.
$(3)$ $CAB$ is a right triangle, hence $CBgeq AB$ by the Pythagorean theorem.
In terms of $theta$ we get:
$$ tantheta geq theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2} geq sintheta $$
for any $thetainleft[0,frac{pi}{2}right)$. Since the involved functions are odd functions the reverse inequality holds over $left(-frac{pi}{2},0right]$, and $lim_{thetato 0}frac{sintheta}{theta}=1$ follows by squeezing.
A slightly different approach might be the following one: let us assume $thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right)$.
By $(2)$ and $(3)$ we have
$$ theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2}geq sintheta $$
hence the sequence ${a_n}_{ngeq 0}$ defined by $a_n = 2^n sinfrac{theta}{2^n}$ is increasing and bounded by $theta$. Any increasing and bounded sequence is convergent, and we actually have $lim_{nto +infty}a_n=theta$ since $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ is a rectifiable curve and for every $ngeq 1$ the $a_n$ term is the length of a polygonal approximation of $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ through $2^{n-1}$ equal segments. In particular
$$ forall thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right), qquad lim_{nto +infty}frac{sinleft(frac{theta}{2^n}right)}{frac{theta}{2^n}} = 1 $$
and this grants that if the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}$ exists, it is $1$. By $sin xleq x$ we get $limsup_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}leq 1$, hence it is enough to show that $liminf_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}geq 1$. We already know that for any $x$ close enough to the origin the sequence $frac{sin x}{x},frac{sin(x/2)}{x/2},frac{sin(x/4)}{x/4},ldots$ is convergent to $1$, hence we are done.
Long story short: $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$ follows from the fact that a circle is a rectifiable curve, and a circle is a rectifiable curve because it is the boundary of a convex, bounded subset of $mathbb{R}^2$. The convexity of the disk follows from the triangle inequality: a disk is a closed ball for the euclidean distance.
$(1)$ relies on this powerful Lemma:
Lemma. If $A,B$ are convex bounded sets in $mathbb{R}^2$ and $Asubsetneq B$, the perimeter of $A$ is less than the perimeter of $B$.
Proof: by boundedness and convexity, $partial A$ and $partial B$ are rectifiable, with lengths $L(A)=mu(partial A),,L(B)=mu(partial B)$. Always by convexity, there is some chord in $B$ that does not meet the interior of $A$ (a tangent to $partial A$ at a smooth point does the job, for instance). Assume that such chord has endpoints $B_1, B_2 in partial B$ and perform a cut along $B_1 B_2$: both the area and the perimeter of $B$ decrease, but $B$ remains a bounded convex set enclosing $A$. Since $A$ can be approximated through a sequence of consecutive cuts, $L(A)<L(B)$ follows.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $sin(x)$ is defined as solution of $frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=-textrm{f}(x)$ with $mathrm f(0)=0,,frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)=C$ initial conditions, so exact solution is $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$.
Define second derivative as
$$
begin{align*}
frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}-frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}{Delta x}}&=\=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-2cdot mathrm f(x-Delta x)+mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x^2}}
end{align*}
$$
we can easy check this limit for any (?) functions. Similarly, we can define the first derivative for right, middle and left points:
$$
frac{d}{dx}textrm{f}(x)left{
begin{aligned}
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}}
\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{2cdotDelta x}}
end{aligned}
right.
$$
Let's use the finite elements method assuming $Td=Delta x,,y_n=mathrm f(x),,y_{n-1}=mathrm f(x-Delta x),,y_{n-2}=mathrm f(x-2cdot Delta x)$
Override differential equation as
$$
frac{y_n-2cdot y_{n-1}+y_{n-2}}{Td^2}=-y_n
$$
Now solve this implicit equation for $y_n$ to obtain explicit recurrence relation:
$$
y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
$$
Using arbitrarily small but non-zero quantity Td we can plot exponentially decaying sampled sine function (because the poles are inside the unit circle of the transfer function corresponding to the given recurrence relation).
Similarly we write three systems for the initial conditions:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-1}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-2}}{2cdot Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
Solve this sequence of equations for $y_{n-1}$ and $y_{n-2}$:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1-Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+frac{Td^2}{2}right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}
end{aligned}right.
$$
At zero point $y_n=mathrm f(0)=0$ and we can see linear dependence:
$$
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td
end{aligned}
$$
for all three solutions. Replace back:
$$
begin{array}{l}
mathrm f(0)&=0\
mathrm f(0-Delta x) &= -Ccdot Delta x\
mathrm f(0-2cdot Delta x) &= -2cdot Ccdot Delta x
end{array}
$$
So all three $frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)$ limits is equal to $C$ at $x=0$ and in accordance with $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$ by definition we can write
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(0)-mathrm f(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{0-(-C cdot Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
Thus
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(0)-Ccdotsin(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{Ccdotsin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=Ccdotlim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
and $lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=1$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simple one is using sandwich theorem Which demonstrated earlier.In this method you have to show that $frac{sin x}{x} $ lies between other two functions. As $x longrightarrow 0$ both of them will tends to ONE.
Then as in the case of sandwich (if both the bread part go to one stomach the middle portion will also go to the same stomach) $frac{sin x}{x}$ will go to ONE.
You can use geogebra to see the visualization of this phenomena using geogebra.First you input $sin x$ and $x$ and observe that near to $0$ values of $sin x$ and $x$ are same.
Secondly input $frac{sin x}{x}$ then observe function is approaching to $1$ as $x$ tends to $0$
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Originally posted on the proofs without words post, here is a simple image that explains the derivative of $sin(x)$, which as we all know, is directly related to the limit at hand.
If one is not so convinced, take a look at the above picture and notice that if $upm h$ is in the first quadrant, then
$$frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h<cos(x)<frac{sin(x-h)-sin(x)}{-h}$$
Notice that
$$
begin{align}frac{d}{dx}sin(x)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h\text{picture above}&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x)cos(h)+cos(x)sin(h)-sin(x)}h\cos(x)&=lim_{hto0}sin(x)frac{cos(h)-1}h+cos(x)frac{sin(h)}h\cos(0)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(h)}hend{align}
$$
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is another approach.
(1)
(2)
In the large triangle, $$tan(theta)=frac{opp}{adg}=frac{z}{1}=z$$ So the triangle has height $$z=tan(theta)$$ and base $1$
so it's area is $$Area(big triangle)=frac{1}{2}z=frac{1}{2}tan(theta)$$
Next the sector area as a fraction of the entire circle, the sector is (see the right hand side of picture (1))$$frac{theta}{2pi}$$ of the entire circle so it's area is
$$Area(sector)=frac{theta}{2pi}*(pi)(1)^2=frac{theta}{2}$$
The triangle within the sector has height $y$. But $y=frac{y}{1}=frac{opp}{hyp}=sin(theta)$ so the small triangle has height $y=sin(theta)$ and base $1$ so its area is $$Area(small triangle)=frac{1}{2}y=frac{1}{2}sin(theta)$$
Now we can use the sandwich theorem as $$Area(big triangle)geq Area(sector)geq Area(small triangle)$$
using the equations we worked out above this becomes
$$frac{tan(theta)}{2}geqfrac{theta}{2}geqfrac{sin(theta)}{2}$$ now multipliying through by two and using the fact that $$tan(theta)=frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}$$ we get that
$$frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}geqthetageqsin(theta)$$
taking reciprocals changes the inequalities so we have that
$$frac{cos(theta)}{sin(theta)}leqfrac{1}{theta}leqfrac{1}{sin(theta)}$$
now finally multiplying through by $sin(theta)$ we get $$cos(theta)leqfrac{sin(theta)}{theta}leq1$$
Now $$lim limits_{theta to 0}cos(theta)=1$$ and$$lim limits_{theta to 0}1=1$$
so by the sandwhich theorem $$lim limits_{theta to 0}frac{sin(theta)}{theta}=1$$ also. QED
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a proof to those familiar with power series.
The definition of $sin(x)$ is
$$sin(x) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}h^{2k+1}$$
Therefore we get
$$begin{align} lim_{x to 0} frac{sin(x)}{x} &= lim_{x to 0} frac{sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}x^{2k+1}}{x} \&= lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 + lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 end{align}$$
where we have used the fact that the power series $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k}$ has radius of convergence $R=infty$ and therefore is continuous on $mathbb R$. This allows us to take the limit inside and we get
$$lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} = sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} 0^{2k} = 0$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
1
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We may use a linear approximation for this limit. The following expression comes straight out of the equation of a line that is $y=mx+b$. Using the fact that $m=dfrac{d}{dx}[f(x)]$ $$f(x) approx f(a) + f'(a)(x-a)$$In this case $f(x)=sin x$ and $a=0$ $implies sin x approx f(0)+cos 0 (x-0)=x longleftrightarrow sin x approx x$. The following graph better illustrates this tangent line approximation.
Since, $sin x approx x implies displaystyle lim_{x to 0} dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We can also use Euler's formula to prove the limit:
$$e^{ix} = cos x + isin x$$
$$lim_{xto 0}dfrac{sin x}{x} = implies lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{ix}- e^{-ix}}{2i x}$$
$$= lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{2ix}-1}{2ix}timesdfrac 1{ e^{ix} }= 1 times 1 = 1$$
since:
$lim_{f(x)to 0}dfrac{e^{f(x)}-1}{f(x)} = 1$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
22 Answers
22
active
oldest
votes
22 Answers
22
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The area of $triangle ABC$ is $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$. The area of the colored wedge is $frac{1}{2}x$, and the area of $triangle ABD$ is $frac{1}{2}tan(x)$. By inclusion, we get
$$
frac{1}{2}tan(x)gefrac{1}{2}xgefrac{1}{2}sin(x)tag{1}
$$
Dividing $(1)$ by $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$ and taking reciprocals, we get
$$
cos(x)lefrac{sin(x)}{x}le1tag{2}
$$
Since $frac{sin(x)}{x}$ and $cos(x)$ are even functions, $(2)$ is valid for any non-zero $x$ between $-frac{pi}{2}$ and $frac{pi}{2}$. Furthermore, since $cos(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $cos(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1tag{3}
$$
Also, dividing $(2)$ by $cos(x)$, we get that
$$
1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}lesec(x)tag{4}
$$
Since $sec(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $sec(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag{5}
$$
$endgroup$
70
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
3
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
45
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
22
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
|
show 23 more comments
$begingroup$
The area of $triangle ABC$ is $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$. The area of the colored wedge is $frac{1}{2}x$, and the area of $triangle ABD$ is $frac{1}{2}tan(x)$. By inclusion, we get
$$
frac{1}{2}tan(x)gefrac{1}{2}xgefrac{1}{2}sin(x)tag{1}
$$
Dividing $(1)$ by $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$ and taking reciprocals, we get
$$
cos(x)lefrac{sin(x)}{x}le1tag{2}
$$
Since $frac{sin(x)}{x}$ and $cos(x)$ are even functions, $(2)$ is valid for any non-zero $x$ between $-frac{pi}{2}$ and $frac{pi}{2}$. Furthermore, since $cos(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $cos(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1tag{3}
$$
Also, dividing $(2)$ by $cos(x)$, we get that
$$
1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}lesec(x)tag{4}
$$
Since $sec(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $sec(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag{5}
$$
$endgroup$
70
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
3
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
45
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
22
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
|
show 23 more comments
$begingroup$
The area of $triangle ABC$ is $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$. The area of the colored wedge is $frac{1}{2}x$, and the area of $triangle ABD$ is $frac{1}{2}tan(x)$. By inclusion, we get
$$
frac{1}{2}tan(x)gefrac{1}{2}xgefrac{1}{2}sin(x)tag{1}
$$
Dividing $(1)$ by $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$ and taking reciprocals, we get
$$
cos(x)lefrac{sin(x)}{x}le1tag{2}
$$
Since $frac{sin(x)}{x}$ and $cos(x)$ are even functions, $(2)$ is valid for any non-zero $x$ between $-frac{pi}{2}$ and $frac{pi}{2}$. Furthermore, since $cos(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $cos(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1tag{3}
$$
Also, dividing $(2)$ by $cos(x)$, we get that
$$
1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}lesec(x)tag{4}
$$
Since $sec(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $sec(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag{5}
$$
$endgroup$
The area of $triangle ABC$ is $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$. The area of the colored wedge is $frac{1}{2}x$, and the area of $triangle ABD$ is $frac{1}{2}tan(x)$. By inclusion, we get
$$
frac{1}{2}tan(x)gefrac{1}{2}xgefrac{1}{2}sin(x)tag{1}
$$
Dividing $(1)$ by $frac{1}{2}sin(x)$ and taking reciprocals, we get
$$
cos(x)lefrac{sin(x)}{x}le1tag{2}
$$
Since $frac{sin(x)}{x}$ and $cos(x)$ are even functions, $(2)$ is valid for any non-zero $x$ between $-frac{pi}{2}$ and $frac{pi}{2}$. Furthermore, since $cos(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $cos(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1tag{3}
$$
Also, dividing $(2)$ by $cos(x)$, we get that
$$
1lefrac{tan(x)}{x}lesec(x)tag{4}
$$
Since $sec(x)$ is continuous near $0$ and $sec(0) = 1$, we get that
$$
lim_{xto0}frac{tan(x)}{x}=1tag{5}
$$
edited Jun 19 '13 at 14:37
answered Oct 23 '11 at 17:26
robjohn♦robjohn
266k27305628
266k27305628
70
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
3
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
45
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
22
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
|
show 23 more comments
70
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
3
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
45
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
22
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
6
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
70
70
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
$begingroup$
Do my homework! Note that $(1)$ says that for $0le xlefrac{pi}{2}$ we have $0lesin(x)le x$; therefore, $limlimits_{xto0^+}sin(x)=0$. Then $cos(x)=1-2sin^2(x/2)$ should finish the job.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 18:37
3
3
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
$begingroup$
Thank you very much. I know that proverb, but I really wasn't able to find that out on my own.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 18:41
45
45
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
$begingroup$
From your comment, I wasn't expecting that you could find it on your own, but "Read the question!" seemed a bit rough around the edges.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Oct 23 '11 at 19:04
22
22
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
$begingroup$
Sorry for that.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 19:35
6
6
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
$begingroup$
I think that your justification is slightly circular :). In an introductory calculus course, $(sin x,cos x)$ is probably defined to be the point we reach after traveling $x$ units counterclockwise along the unit circle from $(1,0)$.
$endgroup$
– Mike F
Oct 23 '11 at 20:54
|
show 23 more comments
$begingroup$
You should first prove that for $x > 0$ small that $sin x < x < tan x$. Then, dividing by $x$ you get
$$
{ sin x over x} < 1
$$
and rearranging $1 < {tan x over x} = {sin x over x cos x }$
$$
cos x < {sin x over x}.
$$
Taking $x rightarrow 0^+$ you apply the squeeze theorem. For $x < 0$ and small use that $sin(-x) = -sin x$ so that $${sin(-x) over -x} = {sin x over x}.$$
As far as why the first inequality I said is true, you can do this completely from triangles but I don't know how to draw the pictures here.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
2
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
9
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
2
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
You should first prove that for $x > 0$ small that $sin x < x < tan x$. Then, dividing by $x$ you get
$$
{ sin x over x} < 1
$$
and rearranging $1 < {tan x over x} = {sin x over x cos x }$
$$
cos x < {sin x over x}.
$$
Taking $x rightarrow 0^+$ you apply the squeeze theorem. For $x < 0$ and small use that $sin(-x) = -sin x$ so that $${sin(-x) over -x} = {sin x over x}.$$
As far as why the first inequality I said is true, you can do this completely from triangles but I don't know how to draw the pictures here.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
2
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
9
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
2
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
You should first prove that for $x > 0$ small that $sin x < x < tan x$. Then, dividing by $x$ you get
$$
{ sin x over x} < 1
$$
and rearranging $1 < {tan x over x} = {sin x over x cos x }$
$$
cos x < {sin x over x}.
$$
Taking $x rightarrow 0^+$ you apply the squeeze theorem. For $x < 0$ and small use that $sin(-x) = -sin x$ so that $${sin(-x) over -x} = {sin x over x}.$$
As far as why the first inequality I said is true, you can do this completely from triangles but I don't know how to draw the pictures here.
$endgroup$
You should first prove that for $x > 0$ small that $sin x < x < tan x$. Then, dividing by $x$ you get
$$
{ sin x over x} < 1
$$
and rearranging $1 < {tan x over x} = {sin x over x cos x }$
$$
cos x < {sin x over x}.
$$
Taking $x rightarrow 0^+$ you apply the squeeze theorem. For $x < 0$ and small use that $sin(-x) = -sin x$ so that $${sin(-x) over -x} = {sin x over x}.$$
As far as why the first inequality I said is true, you can do this completely from triangles but I don't know how to draw the pictures here.
edited Nov 20 '17 at 10:10
Domates
464415
464415
answered Oct 23 '11 at 16:28
tkrtkr
1,64811010
1,64811010
2
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
2
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
9
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
2
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
|
show 3 more comments
2
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
2
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
9
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
2
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
2
2
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
But how to prove that $sin x<x<tan x$?
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Oct 23 '11 at 16:31
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
$begingroup$
It is in the picture. The definition of radians makes the picture above true. Maybe that is worth mentioning: this limit explicitly depends on "$x$" being measured in radians.
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 16:33
2
2
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
$begingroup$
This is a strange picture! Normally you want the $tan(theta)$ side to be parallel to the $sin(theta)$ side.
$endgroup$
– user641
Oct 23 '11 at 17:36
9
9
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
$begingroup$
If you make $tan(theta)$ parallel then you need to make the points $S$ and $Q$ the same. For whatever reason, this is the proof I like the most because it relates the tangent line at the point on the circle to the value we call "tangent". To each his own...
$endgroup$
– tkr
Oct 23 '11 at 18:22
2
2
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
$begingroup$
Even with this picture, you could use the area inclusion principle and argue that area of triangle OPQ < Area of sector OPQ < Area of triangle OPS. This translates into $sin theta < theta < tan theta$ which is the first line of this answer and hence, nothing strange about it.
$endgroup$
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 2 '15 at 21:05
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
Usually calculus textbooks do this using geometric arguments followed by squeezing.
Here's an Euler-esque way of looking at it---not a "proof" as that term is usually understood today, but still worth knowing about.
Let $theta$ be the length of an arc along the circle of unit radius centered at $(0,0)$, from the point $(1,0)$ in a counterclockwise direction to some point $(costheta,sintheta)$ on the circle. Then of course $sintheta$ is the height of the latter point above the $x$-axis. Now imagine what happens if $theta$ is an infinitely small positive number. Then the arc is just an infinitely short vertical line, and the height of the endpoint above the $x$-axis is just the length of the arc. I.e. when $theta$ is an infinitely small number, then $sintheta$ is the same as $theta$. It follows that when $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number, then $dfrac{sintheta}{theta}=1$.
That is how Euler viewed the matter. See his book on differential calculus.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
1
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
1
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Usually calculus textbooks do this using geometric arguments followed by squeezing.
Here's an Euler-esque way of looking at it---not a "proof" as that term is usually understood today, but still worth knowing about.
Let $theta$ be the length of an arc along the circle of unit radius centered at $(0,0)$, from the point $(1,0)$ in a counterclockwise direction to some point $(costheta,sintheta)$ on the circle. Then of course $sintheta$ is the height of the latter point above the $x$-axis. Now imagine what happens if $theta$ is an infinitely small positive number. Then the arc is just an infinitely short vertical line, and the height of the endpoint above the $x$-axis is just the length of the arc. I.e. when $theta$ is an infinitely small number, then $sintheta$ is the same as $theta$. It follows that when $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number, then $dfrac{sintheta}{theta}=1$.
That is how Euler viewed the matter. See his book on differential calculus.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
1
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
1
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Usually calculus textbooks do this using geometric arguments followed by squeezing.
Here's an Euler-esque way of looking at it---not a "proof" as that term is usually understood today, but still worth knowing about.
Let $theta$ be the length of an arc along the circle of unit radius centered at $(0,0)$, from the point $(1,0)$ in a counterclockwise direction to some point $(costheta,sintheta)$ on the circle. Then of course $sintheta$ is the height of the latter point above the $x$-axis. Now imagine what happens if $theta$ is an infinitely small positive number. Then the arc is just an infinitely short vertical line, and the height of the endpoint above the $x$-axis is just the length of the arc. I.e. when $theta$ is an infinitely small number, then $sintheta$ is the same as $theta$. It follows that when $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number, then $dfrac{sintheta}{theta}=1$.
That is how Euler viewed the matter. See his book on differential calculus.
$endgroup$
Usually calculus textbooks do this using geometric arguments followed by squeezing.
Here's an Euler-esque way of looking at it---not a "proof" as that term is usually understood today, but still worth knowing about.
Let $theta$ be the length of an arc along the circle of unit radius centered at $(0,0)$, from the point $(1,0)$ in a counterclockwise direction to some point $(costheta,sintheta)$ on the circle. Then of course $sintheta$ is the height of the latter point above the $x$-axis. Now imagine what happens if $theta$ is an infinitely small positive number. Then the arc is just an infinitely short vertical line, and the height of the endpoint above the $x$-axis is just the length of the arc. I.e. when $theta$ is an infinitely small number, then $sintheta$ is the same as $theta$. It follows that when $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number, then $dfrac{sintheta}{theta}=1$.
That is how Euler viewed the matter. See his book on differential calculus.
edited Jan 21 '16 at 19:11
answered Oct 23 '11 at 17:21
Michael HardyMichael Hardy
1
1
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
1
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
1
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
1
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
1
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
1
1
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
I disagree with the recent edit to my answer and I have reverted to the previous version. "Infinitesmal" means "infinitely small". $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Jan 21 '16 at 19:12
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
$begingroup$
You read Euler's book ? Was it very difficult to read because of the notation and language of the time ?
$endgroup$
– user230452
Feb 27 '16 at 4:03
1
1
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
@user230452 : Just some parts of it. I wouldn't say the differences in language and notation were the challenging part. $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Feb 27 '16 at 18:18
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
$begingroup$
Wouldn't one rather say that $frac{sin theta}{theta}$ is infinitely close to 1 if $theta$ is an infinitely small nonzero number?
$endgroup$
– Sven
Apr 14 '17 at 13:05
1
1
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
$begingroup$
@Sven : That is indeed how it's done in Robinson's "nonstandard analysis". There is another approach to rigorous infinitesimals in which it would be done the way Euler did it, saying that if $theta$ is infinitely small then $dfrac{sintheta}theta = 1.$ It's called "smooth infinitesimal analysis". In that approach, the square of an infinitesimal is $0$, so we have $$ frac{sintheta} theta = frac{theta - dfrac{theta^3} 6 + dfrac{theta^5}{120} - cdots cdots} theta = 1. $$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis $qquad$
$endgroup$
– Michael Hardy
Apr 14 '17 at 18:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Look at this link:
http://fatosmatematicos.blogspot.com/2010/08/provas-sem-palavras-parte-20.html
Here is the picture I copied from that blog:
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
11
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Look at this link:
http://fatosmatematicos.blogspot.com/2010/08/provas-sem-palavras-parte-20.html
Here is the picture I copied from that blog:
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
11
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Look at this link:
http://fatosmatematicos.blogspot.com/2010/08/provas-sem-palavras-parte-20.html
Here is the picture I copied from that blog:
$endgroup$
Look at this link:
http://fatosmatematicos.blogspot.com/2010/08/provas-sem-palavras-parte-20.html
Here is the picture I copied from that blog:
edited Feb 17 '18 at 17:17
elliot
197
197
answered Oct 23 '11 at 21:15
Paulo SérgioPaulo Sérgio
87664
87664
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
11
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
11
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
$begingroup$
+1, nice site - What is the length BC?
$endgroup$
– NoChance
Oct 24 '11 at 5:34
11
11
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
What is the argument for showing that $theta cos thetale sin theta$? The picture isn't immediately convincing.
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Apr 15 '15 at 5:31
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
$begingroup$
@Dr. MV: if you rescale the circle in $cos theta$ units, then the original $sin theta$ is a scaled $tan theta$ which is always longer than its arc.
$endgroup$
– Mattsteel
May 30 '16 at 20:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here you may see an elementary approach that starts from a very interesting result, see this problem. All you need is a bit of imagination. When we take $lim_{nrightarrowinfty} frac{nsin(frac{pi}{n})}{1+sin(frac{pi}{n})}$ we may notice that we have infinitely many circles surrounding the unit circle with infinitely small diameters that lastly perfectly approximate the length of the unit circle when having it there infinity times . Therefore when multiplying n by the radius under the limit to infinity we get π. Let's denote $frac{pi}{n}$ by x.
$$lim_{xrightarrow0}frac{pisin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}={pi}Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}=1Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1$$
The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here you may see an elementary approach that starts from a very interesting result, see this problem. All you need is a bit of imagination. When we take $lim_{nrightarrowinfty} frac{nsin(frac{pi}{n})}{1+sin(frac{pi}{n})}$ we may notice that we have infinitely many circles surrounding the unit circle with infinitely small diameters that lastly perfectly approximate the length of the unit circle when having it there infinity times . Therefore when multiplying n by the radius under the limit to infinity we get π. Let's denote $frac{pi}{n}$ by x.
$$lim_{xrightarrow0}frac{pisin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}={pi}Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}=1Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1$$
The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here you may see an elementary approach that starts from a very interesting result, see this problem. All you need is a bit of imagination. When we take $lim_{nrightarrowinfty} frac{nsin(frac{pi}{n})}{1+sin(frac{pi}{n})}$ we may notice that we have infinitely many circles surrounding the unit circle with infinitely small diameters that lastly perfectly approximate the length of the unit circle when having it there infinity times . Therefore when multiplying n by the radius under the limit to infinity we get π. Let's denote $frac{pi}{n}$ by x.
$$lim_{xrightarrow0}frac{pisin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}={pi}Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}=1Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1$$
The proof is complete.
$endgroup$
Here you may see an elementary approach that starts from a very interesting result, see this problem. All you need is a bit of imagination. When we take $lim_{nrightarrowinfty} frac{nsin(frac{pi}{n})}{1+sin(frac{pi}{n})}$ we may notice that we have infinitely many circles surrounding the unit circle with infinitely small diameters that lastly perfectly approximate the length of the unit circle when having it there infinity times . Therefore when multiplying n by the radius under the limit to infinity we get π. Let's denote $frac{pi}{n}$ by x.
$$lim_{xrightarrow0}frac{pisin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}={pi}Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x(1+sin(x))}=1Rightarrowlim_{xrightarrow0}frac{sin(x)}{x}=1$$
The proof is complete.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:20
Community♦
1
1
answered Jun 7 '12 at 7:03
user 1357113user 1357113
22.4k877226
22.4k877226
1
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
1
1
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
$begingroup$
this assumes the a priori knowledge of the existence of the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$, how would you go about proving it before hand? (+1) by the way for the original and alternative proof
$endgroup$
– user153330
Feb 24 '16 at 14:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I claim that for $0<x<pi/2$ that the following holds
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
In the diagram, we let $OC=OA=1$. In other words, $Arc:CA=x$ is an arc of a unit circle. The shortest distance from point $C$ to line $AO$ is line $CE=sin x$ (because $CEperp OA$). Another path from point $C$ to line $OA$ is arc $CA$ (which is longer than CE because it is not the shortest path). So we have at the very least
$$sin x lt x$$
Now we need to show that line $BA=tan x gt x$.
Lines $AD$ and $CD$ are both tangent to arc $CA$. $CD+DA$ is longer than arc $CA$ because the set of points bound by sector $OCA$ is a subset of the set of points bound by quadrilateral $OCDA$, both of which are convex sets. This means that the perimeter of quadrilateral $OCDA$ must be longer than the perimeter of the sector $OCA$ (as per Archimedes, On the Sphere and Cylinder Book I). But both the sector and the quadrilateral both have sides $OC$ and $OA$, so we have
$$CA=x<DC+DA$$
But $BD>CD$ because it is the hypotenuse in $triangle BCD$ we have
$$tan x = BA = BD+DAgt CD+DA gt CA=x gt sin x$$
So we have
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1 lt frac{tan x}{x}=frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
From this we can extract
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
and
$$1 lt frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x}$$
Putting these inequalities back together we have
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
Because $displaystylelim_{xto 0}cos x = 1$, by the squeeze theorem we have
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
2
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
2
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
2
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I claim that for $0<x<pi/2$ that the following holds
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
In the diagram, we let $OC=OA=1$. In other words, $Arc:CA=x$ is an arc of a unit circle. The shortest distance from point $C$ to line $AO$ is line $CE=sin x$ (because $CEperp OA$). Another path from point $C$ to line $OA$ is arc $CA$ (which is longer than CE because it is not the shortest path). So we have at the very least
$$sin x lt x$$
Now we need to show that line $BA=tan x gt x$.
Lines $AD$ and $CD$ are both tangent to arc $CA$. $CD+DA$ is longer than arc $CA$ because the set of points bound by sector $OCA$ is a subset of the set of points bound by quadrilateral $OCDA$, both of which are convex sets. This means that the perimeter of quadrilateral $OCDA$ must be longer than the perimeter of the sector $OCA$ (as per Archimedes, On the Sphere and Cylinder Book I). But both the sector and the quadrilateral both have sides $OC$ and $OA$, so we have
$$CA=x<DC+DA$$
But $BD>CD$ because it is the hypotenuse in $triangle BCD$ we have
$$tan x = BA = BD+DAgt CD+DA gt CA=x gt sin x$$
So we have
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1 lt frac{tan x}{x}=frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
From this we can extract
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
and
$$1 lt frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x}$$
Putting these inequalities back together we have
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
Because $displaystylelim_{xto 0}cos x = 1$, by the squeeze theorem we have
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
2
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
2
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
2
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I claim that for $0<x<pi/2$ that the following holds
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
In the diagram, we let $OC=OA=1$. In other words, $Arc:CA=x$ is an arc of a unit circle. The shortest distance from point $C$ to line $AO$ is line $CE=sin x$ (because $CEperp OA$). Another path from point $C$ to line $OA$ is arc $CA$ (which is longer than CE because it is not the shortest path). So we have at the very least
$$sin x lt x$$
Now we need to show that line $BA=tan x gt x$.
Lines $AD$ and $CD$ are both tangent to arc $CA$. $CD+DA$ is longer than arc $CA$ because the set of points bound by sector $OCA$ is a subset of the set of points bound by quadrilateral $OCDA$, both of which are convex sets. This means that the perimeter of quadrilateral $OCDA$ must be longer than the perimeter of the sector $OCA$ (as per Archimedes, On the Sphere and Cylinder Book I). But both the sector and the quadrilateral both have sides $OC$ and $OA$, so we have
$$CA=x<DC+DA$$
But $BD>CD$ because it is the hypotenuse in $triangle BCD$ we have
$$tan x = BA = BD+DAgt CD+DA gt CA=x gt sin x$$
So we have
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1 lt frac{tan x}{x}=frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
From this we can extract
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
and
$$1 lt frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x}$$
Putting these inequalities back together we have
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
Because $displaystylelim_{xto 0}cos x = 1$, by the squeeze theorem we have
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$$
$endgroup$
I claim that for $0<x<pi/2$ that the following holds
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
In the diagram, we let $OC=OA=1$. In other words, $Arc:CA=x$ is an arc of a unit circle. The shortest distance from point $C$ to line $AO$ is line $CE=sin x$ (because $CEperp OA$). Another path from point $C$ to line $OA$ is arc $CA$ (which is longer than CE because it is not the shortest path). So we have at the very least
$$sin x lt x$$
Now we need to show that line $BA=tan x gt x$.
Lines $AD$ and $CD$ are both tangent to arc $CA$. $CD+DA$ is longer than arc $CA$ because the set of points bound by sector $OCA$ is a subset of the set of points bound by quadrilateral $OCDA$, both of which are convex sets. This means that the perimeter of quadrilateral $OCDA$ must be longer than the perimeter of the sector $OCA$ (as per Archimedes, On the Sphere and Cylinder Book I). But both the sector and the quadrilateral both have sides $OC$ and $OA$, so we have
$$CA=x<DC+DA$$
But $BD>CD$ because it is the hypotenuse in $triangle BCD$ we have
$$tan x = BA = BD+DAgt CD+DA gt CA=x gt sin x$$
So we have
$$sin x lt x lt tan x$$
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1 lt frac{tan x}{x}=frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
From this we can extract
$$frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
and
$$1 lt frac{sin x}{x}cdotsec x$$
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x}$$
Putting these inequalities back together we have
$$cos x lt frac{sin x}{x} lt 1$$
Because $displaystylelim_{xto 0}cos x = 1$, by the squeeze theorem we have
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$$
answered Sep 7 '14 at 21:44
John JoyJohn Joy
6,20611526
6,20611526
1
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
2
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
2
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
2
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
2
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
2
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
2
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
1
1
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
The reason that I chose an arc length proof is because most derivations that I've seen of the area of a circle (see mathopenref.com/circleareaderive.html) assume that $displaystylelim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$. Using an area based proof, to me, seems like putting the cart before the horse.
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Nov 9 '14 at 15:14
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
$begingroup$
How did Archimedes avoid assuming $frac{chord}{arc}rightarrow 1$ as $arc$ tends to zero in his argument about perimeters that you referred to? I asked the following question because this issue has kept haunting me for a while.
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 9:34
2
2
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
$begingroup$
Actually, what Archimedes assumed was that if 2 curves (both concave in the same direction) have the same endpoints and one of the curves is strictly between a line segment with the same end points and the other curve, then the length of the enclosed curve is shorter than the length of enclosing curve. See axiom #2 archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/4/mode/2up
$endgroup$
– John Joy
Feb 5 '15 at 14:17
2
2
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
$begingroup$
OK, so he essentially axiomatizes the idea that among all curves connecting endpoints $A$ and $B$ satisfying some kind of regularity condition - concavity in the same direction, we have this inequality based on enclosure. This makes $arc(CA)<CD+DA$ in your figure merely equivalent to the assumption itself, but it makes sense and is very nicely put by Archimedes! Thank you for pointing me to that!
$endgroup$
– String
Feb 5 '15 at 14:52
2
2
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
$begingroup$
If you don't have a copy of Archimedes's book, you can approximate sector OCA with a polygon inside OCDA and use cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/PerimetersOfTwoConvexPolygons.shtml
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 6 '17 at 16:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure if it counts as proof, but I have seen this done by a High Schooler.
In the given picture above,
$displaystyle 2n text{ EJ} = 2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = text{ perimeter of polygon }$.
$displaystyle lim_{nto infty }2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = lim_{nto infty } (text{ perimeter of polygon }) = 2 pi R implies lim_{nto infty}frac{sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right )}{left( frac{pi}{n } right )} = 1$ and let $frac{pi}{n} = x$.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
3
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure if it counts as proof, but I have seen this done by a High Schooler.
In the given picture above,
$displaystyle 2n text{ EJ} = 2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = text{ perimeter of polygon }$.
$displaystyle lim_{nto infty }2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = lim_{nto infty } (text{ perimeter of polygon }) = 2 pi R implies lim_{nto infty}frac{sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right )}{left( frac{pi}{n } right )} = 1$ and let $frac{pi}{n} = x$.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
3
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not sure if it counts as proof, but I have seen this done by a High Schooler.
In the given picture above,
$displaystyle 2n text{ EJ} = 2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = text{ perimeter of polygon }$.
$displaystyle lim_{nto infty }2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = lim_{nto infty } (text{ perimeter of polygon }) = 2 pi R implies lim_{nto infty}frac{sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right )}{left( frac{pi}{n } right )} = 1$ and let $frac{pi}{n} = x$.
$endgroup$
I am not sure if it counts as proof, but I have seen this done by a High Schooler.
In the given picture above,
$displaystyle 2n text{ EJ} = 2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = text{ perimeter of polygon }$.
$displaystyle lim_{nto infty }2nR sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right ) = lim_{nto infty } (text{ perimeter of polygon }) = 2 pi R implies lim_{nto infty}frac{sinleft( frac{pi}{n } right )}{left( frac{pi}{n } right )} = 1$ and let $frac{pi}{n} = x$.
answered May 16 '13 at 18:01
Santosh LinkhaSantosh Linkha
9,58422852
9,58422852
7
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
3
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
3
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
7
7
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
$begingroup$
This method is usually used to prove that the perimeter of a circle is $2pi R$ using the fact $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$
$endgroup$
– BPP
Jul 20 '13 at 19:15
3
3
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
Santosh, how does one prove that the perimeter of the polygon converges to the $ 2pi$ ?
$endgroup$
– Imago
Feb 5 '16 at 19:45
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
$begingroup$
@Imago math.stackexchange.com/questions/720935/…
$endgroup$
– user301988
Jun 6 '16 at 3:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't you feel strange about why most of the proofs are done with a figure? I've had this problem in the beginning, and realized after that this is due to the definition we use for the function $sin x$. Because the usual definition of $sin x$ we all study first in high schools depends on “classical geometry” and usually with a figure, you should depict out the figure and to make it clear.
However, if you use other definitions of $sin x$ that are equivalent to the former, you'll find it more simple. For example,
$$sin x = frac{x^1}{1!} - frac{x^3}{3!}+ frac{x^5}{5!} - cdots + cdots - cdots$$
and hence
$$frac{sin x}x = frac{x^0}{1!} - frac{x^2}{3!}+ frac{x^4}{5!} - cdots$$
which obviously tends to $1$ as $x$ approaches 0.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
2
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
3
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't you feel strange about why most of the proofs are done with a figure? I've had this problem in the beginning, and realized after that this is due to the definition we use for the function $sin x$. Because the usual definition of $sin x$ we all study first in high schools depends on “classical geometry” and usually with a figure, you should depict out the figure and to make it clear.
However, if you use other definitions of $sin x$ that are equivalent to the former, you'll find it more simple. For example,
$$sin x = frac{x^1}{1!} - frac{x^3}{3!}+ frac{x^5}{5!} - cdots + cdots - cdots$$
and hence
$$frac{sin x}x = frac{x^0}{1!} - frac{x^2}{3!}+ frac{x^4}{5!} - cdots$$
which obviously tends to $1$ as $x$ approaches 0.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
2
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
3
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Don't you feel strange about why most of the proofs are done with a figure? I've had this problem in the beginning, and realized after that this is due to the definition we use for the function $sin x$. Because the usual definition of $sin x$ we all study first in high schools depends on “classical geometry” and usually with a figure, you should depict out the figure and to make it clear.
However, if you use other definitions of $sin x$ that are equivalent to the former, you'll find it more simple. For example,
$$sin x = frac{x^1}{1!} - frac{x^3}{3!}+ frac{x^5}{5!} - cdots + cdots - cdots$$
and hence
$$frac{sin x}x = frac{x^0}{1!} - frac{x^2}{3!}+ frac{x^4}{5!} - cdots$$
which obviously tends to $1$ as $x$ approaches 0.
$endgroup$
Don't you feel strange about why most of the proofs are done with a figure? I've had this problem in the beginning, and realized after that this is due to the definition we use for the function $sin x$. Because the usual definition of $sin x$ we all study first in high schools depends on “classical geometry” and usually with a figure, you should depict out the figure and to make it clear.
However, if you use other definitions of $sin x$ that are equivalent to the former, you'll find it more simple. For example,
$$sin x = frac{x^1}{1!} - frac{x^3}{3!}+ frac{x^5}{5!} - cdots + cdots - cdots$$
and hence
$$frac{sin x}x = frac{x^0}{1!} - frac{x^2}{3!}+ frac{x^4}{5!} - cdots$$
which obviously tends to $1$ as $x$ approaches 0.
edited Mar 13 '15 at 17:57
FUZxxl
3,75552142
3,75552142
answered Mar 13 '15 at 17:06
user223261user223261
58144
58144
3
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
2
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
3
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
2
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
3
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
3
3
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
$begingroup$
Indeed, it's easy to see that this holds if one uses a series, but this question starts on the prerequisite that one does not use a series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Mar 13 '15 at 17:54
2
2
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
$begingroup$
And how do you know that the derivative of an infinte series is equal to the sum of the derivatives of each term?
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Apr 16 '16 at 4:32
3
3
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@StevenGregory: Where does he use that? He only divides by $x$. What he does use is that $frac{1}{x}lim_{ntoinfty} sum_{k=0}^n a_k = lim_{ntoinfty}sum_{k=0}^n frac{a_k}{x}$
$endgroup$
– celtschk
Sep 24 '16 at 9:36
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
$begingroup$
@celschk starting with the infinite series as a 'definition' causes more problems than it solves. Now we have to prove that this sine behaves like the sine we learned in high school. This proof is compelling but it is not really a proof.
$endgroup$
– steven gregory
Sep 24 '16 at 14:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one more:
$$
lim_{x to 0} frac{sin x}{x}=lim_{x to 0} lim_{v to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}\
=lim_{v to 0} lim_{x to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}=lim_{v to 0}sin'v=lim_{v to 0} cos v=1
$$
$endgroup$
32
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one more:
$$
lim_{x to 0} frac{sin x}{x}=lim_{x to 0} lim_{v to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}\
=lim_{v to 0} lim_{x to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}=lim_{v to 0}sin'v=lim_{v to 0} cos v=1
$$
$endgroup$
32
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's one more:
$$
lim_{x to 0} frac{sin x}{x}=lim_{x to 0} lim_{v to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}\
=lim_{v to 0} lim_{x to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}=lim_{v to 0}sin'v=lim_{v to 0} cos v=1
$$
$endgroup$
Here's one more:
$$
lim_{x to 0} frac{sin x}{x}=lim_{x to 0} lim_{v to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}\
=lim_{v to 0} lim_{x to 0}frac{sin (x+v)-sin v}{x}=lim_{v to 0}sin'v=lim_{v to 0} cos v=1
$$
answered Jul 20 '13 at 18:37
AlexAlex
14.2k42134
14.2k42134
32
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
add a comment |
32
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
32
32
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
$begingroup$
Usually, this limit is used to compute the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jul 20 '13 at 18:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It depends on your definition of the sine function. I would suggest checking out the geometric proof in ProofWiki.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It depends on your definition of the sine function. I would suggest checking out the geometric proof in ProofWiki.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It depends on your definition of the sine function. I would suggest checking out the geometric proof in ProofWiki.
$endgroup$
It depends on your definition of the sine function. I would suggest checking out the geometric proof in ProofWiki.
answered Oct 23 '11 at 16:30
Yuval FilmusYuval Filmus
48.5k471144
48.5k471144
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The strategy is to find $frac{darcsin y}{dy}$ first. This can easily be done using the picture below.
From the above picture, $arcsin y$ is twice the area of the orange bit. The area of the red bit is ${1 over 2}ysqrt{1-y^2}$. The area of the red bit plus the orange bit is $int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY$. So $$arcsin y = 2int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY - ysqrt{1-y^2}.$$ Differentiating with respect to $y$ gives $frac{darcsin y}{dy} = frac{1}{sqrt{1-y^2}}$. Using the theorem for the derivative of inverse functions yields $sin' theta = sqrt{1 - sin^2 theta} = cos theta$.
(A similar thing can be done with the arc length definition of $arcsin$.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The strategy is to find $frac{darcsin y}{dy}$ first. This can easily be done using the picture below.
From the above picture, $arcsin y$ is twice the area of the orange bit. The area of the red bit is ${1 over 2}ysqrt{1-y^2}$. The area of the red bit plus the orange bit is $int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY$. So $$arcsin y = 2int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY - ysqrt{1-y^2}.$$ Differentiating with respect to $y$ gives $frac{darcsin y}{dy} = frac{1}{sqrt{1-y^2}}$. Using the theorem for the derivative of inverse functions yields $sin' theta = sqrt{1 - sin^2 theta} = cos theta$.
(A similar thing can be done with the arc length definition of $arcsin$.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The strategy is to find $frac{darcsin y}{dy}$ first. This can easily be done using the picture below.
From the above picture, $arcsin y$ is twice the area of the orange bit. The area of the red bit is ${1 over 2}ysqrt{1-y^2}$. The area of the red bit plus the orange bit is $int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY$. So $$arcsin y = 2int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY - ysqrt{1-y^2}.$$ Differentiating with respect to $y$ gives $frac{darcsin y}{dy} = frac{1}{sqrt{1-y^2}}$. Using the theorem for the derivative of inverse functions yields $sin' theta = sqrt{1 - sin^2 theta} = cos theta$.
(A similar thing can be done with the arc length definition of $arcsin$.)
$endgroup$
The strategy is to find $frac{darcsin y}{dy}$ first. This can easily be done using the picture below.
From the above picture, $arcsin y$ is twice the area of the orange bit. The area of the red bit is ${1 over 2}ysqrt{1-y^2}$. The area of the red bit plus the orange bit is $int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY$. So $$arcsin y = 2int_{0}^y sqrt{1-Y^2} dY - ysqrt{1-y^2}.$$ Differentiating with respect to $y$ gives $frac{darcsin y}{dy} = frac{1}{sqrt{1-y^2}}$. Using the theorem for the derivative of inverse functions yields $sin' theta = sqrt{1 - sin^2 theta} = cos theta$.
(A similar thing can be done with the arc length definition of $arcsin$.)
edited Mar 7 '18 at 16:46
answered Apr 11 '15 at 17:26
man on laptopman on laptop
5,72611238
5,72611238
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
$begingroup$
While this is indeed an interesting approach, integrals haven't been taught at the point where this limit is proved. Thank you for your answer though.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Apr 11 '15 at 17:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f:{yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}tomathbb{R}$ be a function defined by $f(x):=dfrac{sin x}{x}$ for all $xin {yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}$.
We have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$ if and only if for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a $delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Let $varepsilon>0$ be an arbitrary real number.
Note that $sin x=displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$.
If $x neq 0$, we have $dfrac{sin x}{x}=$$displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}=1+$$displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$.
We thus have
$|f(x)-1|=left|dfrac{sin x}{x}-1right|=left|displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq left|displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|$
Therefore we have
$|f(x)-1|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty} |x^{2n}|=sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$
If $0<|x|<1$, then $0<|x^2|<1$, and the infinite series $displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$ converges to $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}$.
Choose $delta:=sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}$.
Then $0<|x-0|<delta$ implies that $0<|x|<$$sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}<1$, and hence $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$. But $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$ implies that $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}<varepsilon$.
We therefore have $sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$. But since $|f(x)-1|leqdisplaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$, we have $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f:{yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}tomathbb{R}$ be a function defined by $f(x):=dfrac{sin x}{x}$ for all $xin {yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}$.
We have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$ if and only if for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a $delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Let $varepsilon>0$ be an arbitrary real number.
Note that $sin x=displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$.
If $x neq 0$, we have $dfrac{sin x}{x}=$$displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}=1+$$displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$.
We thus have
$|f(x)-1|=left|dfrac{sin x}{x}-1right|=left|displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq left|displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|$
Therefore we have
$|f(x)-1|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty} |x^{2n}|=sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$
If $0<|x|<1$, then $0<|x^2|<1$, and the infinite series $displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$ converges to $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}$.
Choose $delta:=sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}$.
Then $0<|x-0|<delta$ implies that $0<|x|<$$sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}<1$, and hence $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$. But $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$ implies that $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}<varepsilon$.
We therefore have $sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$. But since $|f(x)-1|leqdisplaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$, we have $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $f:{yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}tomathbb{R}$ be a function defined by $f(x):=dfrac{sin x}{x}$ for all $xin {yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}$.
We have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$ if and only if for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a $delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Let $varepsilon>0$ be an arbitrary real number.
Note that $sin x=displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$.
If $x neq 0$, we have $dfrac{sin x}{x}=$$displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}=1+$$displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$.
We thus have
$|f(x)-1|=left|dfrac{sin x}{x}-1right|=left|displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq left|displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|$
Therefore we have
$|f(x)-1|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty} |x^{2n}|=sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$
If $0<|x|<1$, then $0<|x^2|<1$, and the infinite series $displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$ converges to $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}$.
Choose $delta:=sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}$.
Then $0<|x-0|<delta$ implies that $0<|x|<$$sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}<1$, and hence $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$. But $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$ implies that $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}<varepsilon$.
We therefore have $sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$. But since $|f(x)-1|leqdisplaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$, we have $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$.
$endgroup$
Let $f:{yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}tomathbb{R}$ be a function defined by $f(x):=dfrac{sin x}{x}$ for all $xin {yinmathbb{R}:yneq 0}$.
We have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$ if and only if for every $varepsilon>0$, there exists a $delta>0$ such that $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Let $varepsilon>0$ be an arbitrary real number.
Note that $sin x=displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!}$.
If $x neq 0$, we have $dfrac{sin x}{x}=$$displaystyle sum_{n=0}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}=1+$$displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}$.
We thus have
$|f(x)-1|=left|dfrac{sin x}{x}-1right|=left|displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty}(-1)^ndfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq left|displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|$
Therefore we have
$|f(x)-1|leq displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty} left|dfrac{x^{2n}}{(2n+1)!}right|leq displaystyle sum_{n=1}^{infty} |x^{2n}|=sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$
If $0<|x|<1$, then $0<|x^2|<1$, and the infinite series $displaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$ converges to $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}$.
Choose $delta:=sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}$.
Then $0<|x-0|<delta$ implies that $0<|x|<$$sqrt{dfrac{varepsilon}{1+varepsilon}}<1$, and hence $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$. But $x^2<varepsilon-varepsilon x^2$ implies that $dfrac{x^2}{1-x^2}<varepsilon$.
We therefore have $sum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$. But since $|f(x)-1|leqdisplaystylesum_{n=1}^{infty}|x^2|^n$, we have $|f(x)-1|<varepsilon$ whenever $0<|x-0|<delta$.
Since $varepsilon$ was arbitrary, we have $displaystylelim_{x to 0}dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$.
answered Oct 10 '16 at 14:55
Supreeth NarasimhaswamySupreeth Narasimhaswamy
643514
643514
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
$begingroup$
The premise of the question was not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a different approach that uses the integral definition of the arcsine function. We will deduce the limit of interest without appeal to geometry or differential calculus.
Instead, we only rely on elementary analysis of continuous functions and their inverses along with simple properties of the Riemann integral. To that end, we now proceed.
We define the sine function, $sin(x)$, as the inverse function of the function $f(x)$ given by
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{f(x)=int_0^x frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}},dt }tag 1$$
for $|x|< 1$.
NOTE: It can be shown that the sine function defined as the inverse of $f(x)$ given in $(1)$ has all of the familiar properties that characterize the circular function $sin(x)$.
It is straightforward to show that since $frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}}$ is positive and continuous for $tin (-1,1)$, $f(x)$ is continuous and strictly increasing for $xin (-1,1)$ with $displaystylelim_{xto 0}f(x)=f(0)=0$.
Therefore, since $f$ is continuous and strictly increasing, its inverse function, $sin(x)$, exists and is also continuous and strictly increasing with $displaystyle lim_{xto 0}sin(x)=sin(0)=0$.
From $(1)$, we have the bounds (SEE HERE)
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{1 le frac{f(x)}xle frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}} tag 2$$
for $xin (-1,1)$, whence applying the squeeze theorem to $(2)$ yields
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{f(x)}{x}=1 tag 3$$
Finally, let $y=f(x)$ so that $x=sin(y)$. As $xto 0$, $yto 0$ and we can write $(3)$ as
$$lim_{yto 0}frac{y}{sin(y)}=1$$
from which we have
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{lim_{yto 0}frac{sin(y)}{y}=1}$$
as was to be shown!
NOTE:
We can deduce the following set of useful inequalities from $(2)$. We let $x=sin(theta)$ and restrict $x$ so that $xin [0,1)$. In addition, we define new functions, $cos(theta)=sqrt{1-sin^2(theta)}$ and $tan(theta)=sin(theta)/cos(theta)$.
Then, we have from $(2)$
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{ycos(y)le sin(y)le yle tan(y)} $$
which are the familiar inequalities often introduced in an introductory geometry or trigonometry course.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
1
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
1
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
1
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
1
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Here is a different approach that uses the integral definition of the arcsine function. We will deduce the limit of interest without appeal to geometry or differential calculus.
Instead, we only rely on elementary analysis of continuous functions and their inverses along with simple properties of the Riemann integral. To that end, we now proceed.
We define the sine function, $sin(x)$, as the inverse function of the function $f(x)$ given by
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{f(x)=int_0^x frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}},dt }tag 1$$
for $|x|< 1$.
NOTE: It can be shown that the sine function defined as the inverse of $f(x)$ given in $(1)$ has all of the familiar properties that characterize the circular function $sin(x)$.
It is straightforward to show that since $frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}}$ is positive and continuous for $tin (-1,1)$, $f(x)$ is continuous and strictly increasing for $xin (-1,1)$ with $displaystylelim_{xto 0}f(x)=f(0)=0$.
Therefore, since $f$ is continuous and strictly increasing, its inverse function, $sin(x)$, exists and is also continuous and strictly increasing with $displaystyle lim_{xto 0}sin(x)=sin(0)=0$.
From $(1)$, we have the bounds (SEE HERE)
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{1 le frac{f(x)}xle frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}} tag 2$$
for $xin (-1,1)$, whence applying the squeeze theorem to $(2)$ yields
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{f(x)}{x}=1 tag 3$$
Finally, let $y=f(x)$ so that $x=sin(y)$. As $xto 0$, $yto 0$ and we can write $(3)$ as
$$lim_{yto 0}frac{y}{sin(y)}=1$$
from which we have
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{lim_{yto 0}frac{sin(y)}{y}=1}$$
as was to be shown!
NOTE:
We can deduce the following set of useful inequalities from $(2)$. We let $x=sin(theta)$ and restrict $x$ so that $xin [0,1)$. In addition, we define new functions, $cos(theta)=sqrt{1-sin^2(theta)}$ and $tan(theta)=sin(theta)/cos(theta)$.
Then, we have from $(2)$
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{ycos(y)le sin(y)le yle tan(y)} $$
which are the familiar inequalities often introduced in an introductory geometry or trigonometry course.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
1
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
1
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
1
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
1
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Here is a different approach that uses the integral definition of the arcsine function. We will deduce the limit of interest without appeal to geometry or differential calculus.
Instead, we only rely on elementary analysis of continuous functions and their inverses along with simple properties of the Riemann integral. To that end, we now proceed.
We define the sine function, $sin(x)$, as the inverse function of the function $f(x)$ given by
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{f(x)=int_0^x frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}},dt }tag 1$$
for $|x|< 1$.
NOTE: It can be shown that the sine function defined as the inverse of $f(x)$ given in $(1)$ has all of the familiar properties that characterize the circular function $sin(x)$.
It is straightforward to show that since $frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}}$ is positive and continuous for $tin (-1,1)$, $f(x)$ is continuous and strictly increasing for $xin (-1,1)$ with $displaystylelim_{xto 0}f(x)=f(0)=0$.
Therefore, since $f$ is continuous and strictly increasing, its inverse function, $sin(x)$, exists and is also continuous and strictly increasing with $displaystyle lim_{xto 0}sin(x)=sin(0)=0$.
From $(1)$, we have the bounds (SEE HERE)
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{1 le frac{f(x)}xle frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}} tag 2$$
for $xin (-1,1)$, whence applying the squeeze theorem to $(2)$ yields
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{f(x)}{x}=1 tag 3$$
Finally, let $y=f(x)$ so that $x=sin(y)$. As $xto 0$, $yto 0$ and we can write $(3)$ as
$$lim_{yto 0}frac{y}{sin(y)}=1$$
from which we have
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{lim_{yto 0}frac{sin(y)}{y}=1}$$
as was to be shown!
NOTE:
We can deduce the following set of useful inequalities from $(2)$. We let $x=sin(theta)$ and restrict $x$ so that $xin [0,1)$. In addition, we define new functions, $cos(theta)=sqrt{1-sin^2(theta)}$ and $tan(theta)=sin(theta)/cos(theta)$.
Then, we have from $(2)$
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{ycos(y)le sin(y)le yle tan(y)} $$
which are the familiar inequalities often introduced in an introductory geometry or trigonometry course.
$endgroup$
Here is a different approach that uses the integral definition of the arcsine function. We will deduce the limit of interest without appeal to geometry or differential calculus.
Instead, we only rely on elementary analysis of continuous functions and their inverses along with simple properties of the Riemann integral. To that end, we now proceed.
We define the sine function, $sin(x)$, as the inverse function of the function $f(x)$ given by
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{f(x)=int_0^x frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}},dt }tag 1$$
for $|x|< 1$.
NOTE: It can be shown that the sine function defined as the inverse of $f(x)$ given in $(1)$ has all of the familiar properties that characterize the circular function $sin(x)$.
It is straightforward to show that since $frac{1}{sqrt{1-t^2}}$ is positive and continuous for $tin (-1,1)$, $f(x)$ is continuous and strictly increasing for $xin (-1,1)$ with $displaystylelim_{xto 0}f(x)=f(0)=0$.
Therefore, since $f$ is continuous and strictly increasing, its inverse function, $sin(x)$, exists and is also continuous and strictly increasing with $displaystyle lim_{xto 0}sin(x)=sin(0)=0$.
From $(1)$, we have the bounds (SEE HERE)
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{1 le frac{f(x)}xle frac{1}{sqrt{1-x^2}}} tag 2$$
for $xin (-1,1)$, whence applying the squeeze theorem to $(2)$ yields
$$lim_{xto 0}frac{f(x)}{x}=1 tag 3$$
Finally, let $y=f(x)$ so that $x=sin(y)$. As $xto 0$, $yto 0$ and we can write $(3)$ as
$$lim_{yto 0}frac{y}{sin(y)}=1$$
from which we have
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{lim_{yto 0}frac{sin(y)}{y}=1}$$
as was to be shown!
NOTE:
We can deduce the following set of useful inequalities from $(2)$. We let $x=sin(theta)$ and restrict $x$ so that $xin [0,1)$. In addition, we define new functions, $cos(theta)=sqrt{1-sin^2(theta)}$ and $tan(theta)=sin(theta)/cos(theta)$.
Then, we have from $(2)$
$$bbox[5px,border:2px solid #C0A000]{ycos(y)le sin(y)le yle tan(y)} $$
which are the familiar inequalities often introduced in an introductory geometry or trigonometry course.
edited Dec 6 '16 at 18:53
answered Dec 6 '16 at 18:47
Mark ViolaMark Viola
131k1275171
131k1275171
1
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
1
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
1
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
1
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
1
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
|
show 2 more comments
1
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
1
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
1
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
1
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
1
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
1
1
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
$begingroup$
This is similar to my answer. You're formalizing the arc-length definition of $sin$ in the following three steps. 1) Defining $arcsin$ geometrically 2) Expressing that informal definition using integration 3) Defining $sin$ as the inverse of $arcsin$. Also, where you used the sqeeuze theorem, you could equally have used the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and the Inverse Function Theorem. Then you'd get my answer
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
$begingroup$
Another difference is you used the arc-length definition and I used the area definition
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 10:19
1
1
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
$begingroup$
@ogogmad I don't use any geometrical argument. A function $f$ is defined without reference to the arc length interpretation. Both $f$ and its inverse has properties. It can be shown that the inverse function is the well-known sine function. And while one can apply the FOC instead of the squeeze theorem, there is no advantage in doing so. So, why on earth are you leaving these comments?
$endgroup$
– Mark Viola
Feb 5 '18 at 14:50
1
1
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
$begingroup$
Because I'm pointing out that your abstract definitions make geometric sense, whether or not your realize it. I'm also pointing out that your squeeze argument is just a special case of FOC
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 16:43
1
1
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
$begingroup$
In fact, all of the arguments above are morally the same, AFAICT. The squeeze arguments are just unpacking the proof of FOC on a special case. The FOC itself is proved using a very similar squeeze argument to the one people are using. The areas of the sectors are simply the integrals that are being differentiated. In tkr's argument, he's instead differentiating an arclength integral, which gives the same result anyway. There's the remaining feature that our two answers uses $arcsin$ while everyone else's uses $sin$; they may be implicitly unpacking the proof of the inverse function theorem.
$endgroup$
– man on laptop
Feb 5 '18 at 17:01
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Because $sin x$ has zeroes at $x=n pi$ for arbitrary integer $n$ including $x=0$, you can use Vieta's Theorem $sin x = A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)x(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots)$ with a constant $A$. Because $sin(frac{pi}{2})=1$ this constant can be determined by the equation: $$1=A(cdots(frac{pi}{2}+2 pi)(frac{pi}{2}+pi)frac{pi}{2}(frac{pi}{2}-pi)(frac{pi}{2}-2 pi)cdots).$$
Now, in the Expression $f(x):= frac{sin(x)}{x}$ the $x$ cancels such that $$f(x)=A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots),$$ hence: $$lim_{x rightarrow 0} f(x)=A(cdots(2 pi) cdot picdot(- pi)cdot(-2 pi)cdots) = A prod_{k=1}^infty (-k^2 pi^2).$$
$frac{1}{A} = frac{pi}{2} prod_{k=1}^infty ((frac{pi}{2})^2-k^2 pi^2)$. The proof is completed when the Wallis product is used.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
2
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because $sin x$ has zeroes at $x=n pi$ for arbitrary integer $n$ including $x=0$, you can use Vieta's Theorem $sin x = A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)x(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots)$ with a constant $A$. Because $sin(frac{pi}{2})=1$ this constant can be determined by the equation: $$1=A(cdots(frac{pi}{2}+2 pi)(frac{pi}{2}+pi)frac{pi}{2}(frac{pi}{2}-pi)(frac{pi}{2}-2 pi)cdots).$$
Now, in the Expression $f(x):= frac{sin(x)}{x}$ the $x$ cancels such that $$f(x)=A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots),$$ hence: $$lim_{x rightarrow 0} f(x)=A(cdots(2 pi) cdot picdot(- pi)cdot(-2 pi)cdots) = A prod_{k=1}^infty (-k^2 pi^2).$$
$frac{1}{A} = frac{pi}{2} prod_{k=1}^infty ((frac{pi}{2})^2-k^2 pi^2)$. The proof is completed when the Wallis product is used.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
2
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Because $sin x$ has zeroes at $x=n pi$ for arbitrary integer $n$ including $x=0$, you can use Vieta's Theorem $sin x = A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)x(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots)$ with a constant $A$. Because $sin(frac{pi}{2})=1$ this constant can be determined by the equation: $$1=A(cdots(frac{pi}{2}+2 pi)(frac{pi}{2}+pi)frac{pi}{2}(frac{pi}{2}-pi)(frac{pi}{2}-2 pi)cdots).$$
Now, in the Expression $f(x):= frac{sin(x)}{x}$ the $x$ cancels such that $$f(x)=A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots),$$ hence: $$lim_{x rightarrow 0} f(x)=A(cdots(2 pi) cdot picdot(- pi)cdot(-2 pi)cdots) = A prod_{k=1}^infty (-k^2 pi^2).$$
$frac{1}{A} = frac{pi}{2} prod_{k=1}^infty ((frac{pi}{2})^2-k^2 pi^2)$. The proof is completed when the Wallis product is used.
$endgroup$
Because $sin x$ has zeroes at $x=n pi$ for arbitrary integer $n$ including $x=0$, you can use Vieta's Theorem $sin x = A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)x(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots)$ with a constant $A$. Because $sin(frac{pi}{2})=1$ this constant can be determined by the equation: $$1=A(cdots(frac{pi}{2}+2 pi)(frac{pi}{2}+pi)frac{pi}{2}(frac{pi}{2}-pi)(frac{pi}{2}-2 pi)cdots).$$
Now, in the Expression $f(x):= frac{sin(x)}{x}$ the $x$ cancels such that $$f(x)=A(cdots(x+2 pi)(x+pi)(x-pi)(x-2 pi)cdots),$$ hence: $$lim_{x rightarrow 0} f(x)=A(cdots(2 pi) cdot picdot(- pi)cdot(-2 pi)cdots) = A prod_{k=1}^infty (-k^2 pi^2).$$
$frac{1}{A} = frac{pi}{2} prod_{k=1}^infty ((frac{pi}{2})^2-k^2 pi^2)$. The proof is completed when the Wallis product is used.
edited Jun 18 '16 at 1:38
Michael Hardy
1
1
answered Mar 4 '15 at 20:15
kryomaximkryomaxim
2,3571625
2,3571625
5
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
2
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
2
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
5
5
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
$begingroup$
None of the infinite products in your answer converge.
$endgroup$
– Antonio Vargas
Oct 15 '15 at 1:30
2
2
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
$begingroup$
Ontop of Antonio Vargas comment, Vieta's theorem only works for finite number of zeros. You need the Weierstrass-Factorization Theorem or Hadamard-Factorization Theorem. Btw you also need to verify that $sin(x)$ does not have any complex zeros.
$endgroup$
– MrYouMath
Jun 10 '16 at 12:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Usual proofs can be circular, but there is a simple way for proving such inequality.
Let $theta$ be an acute angle and let $O,A,B,C,D,C'$ as in the following diagram:
We may show that:
$$ CD stackrel{(1)}{ geq };stackrel{largefrown}{CB}; stackrel{(2)}{geq } CB,stackrel{(3)}{geq} AB $$
$(1)$: The quadrilateral $OCDC'$ and the circle sector delimited by $O,C,C'$ are two convex sets. Since the circle sector is a subset of the quadrilateral, the perimeter of the circle sector is less than the perimeter of the quadrilateral.
$(2)$: the $CB$ segment is the shortest path between $B$ and $C$.
$(3)$ $CAB$ is a right triangle, hence $CBgeq AB$ by the Pythagorean theorem.
In terms of $theta$ we get:
$$ tantheta geq theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2} geq sintheta $$
for any $thetainleft[0,frac{pi}{2}right)$. Since the involved functions are odd functions the reverse inequality holds over $left(-frac{pi}{2},0right]$, and $lim_{thetato 0}frac{sintheta}{theta}=1$ follows by squeezing.
A slightly different approach might be the following one: let us assume $thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right)$.
By $(2)$ and $(3)$ we have
$$ theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2}geq sintheta $$
hence the sequence ${a_n}_{ngeq 0}$ defined by $a_n = 2^n sinfrac{theta}{2^n}$ is increasing and bounded by $theta$. Any increasing and bounded sequence is convergent, and we actually have $lim_{nto +infty}a_n=theta$ since $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ is a rectifiable curve and for every $ngeq 1$ the $a_n$ term is the length of a polygonal approximation of $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ through $2^{n-1}$ equal segments. In particular
$$ forall thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right), qquad lim_{nto +infty}frac{sinleft(frac{theta}{2^n}right)}{frac{theta}{2^n}} = 1 $$
and this grants that if the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}$ exists, it is $1$. By $sin xleq x$ we get $limsup_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}leq 1$, hence it is enough to show that $liminf_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}geq 1$. We already know that for any $x$ close enough to the origin the sequence $frac{sin x}{x},frac{sin(x/2)}{x/2},frac{sin(x/4)}{x/4},ldots$ is convergent to $1$, hence we are done.
Long story short: $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$ follows from the fact that a circle is a rectifiable curve, and a circle is a rectifiable curve because it is the boundary of a convex, bounded subset of $mathbb{R}^2$. The convexity of the disk follows from the triangle inequality: a disk is a closed ball for the euclidean distance.
$(1)$ relies on this powerful Lemma:
Lemma. If $A,B$ are convex bounded sets in $mathbb{R}^2$ and $Asubsetneq B$, the perimeter of $A$ is less than the perimeter of $B$.
Proof: by boundedness and convexity, $partial A$ and $partial B$ are rectifiable, with lengths $L(A)=mu(partial A),,L(B)=mu(partial B)$. Always by convexity, there is some chord in $B$ that does not meet the interior of $A$ (a tangent to $partial A$ at a smooth point does the job, for instance). Assume that such chord has endpoints $B_1, B_2 in partial B$ and perform a cut along $B_1 B_2$: both the area and the perimeter of $B$ decrease, but $B$ remains a bounded convex set enclosing $A$. Since $A$ can be approximated through a sequence of consecutive cuts, $L(A)<L(B)$ follows.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Usual proofs can be circular, but there is a simple way for proving such inequality.
Let $theta$ be an acute angle and let $O,A,B,C,D,C'$ as in the following diagram:
We may show that:
$$ CD stackrel{(1)}{ geq };stackrel{largefrown}{CB}; stackrel{(2)}{geq } CB,stackrel{(3)}{geq} AB $$
$(1)$: The quadrilateral $OCDC'$ and the circle sector delimited by $O,C,C'$ are two convex sets. Since the circle sector is a subset of the quadrilateral, the perimeter of the circle sector is less than the perimeter of the quadrilateral.
$(2)$: the $CB$ segment is the shortest path between $B$ and $C$.
$(3)$ $CAB$ is a right triangle, hence $CBgeq AB$ by the Pythagorean theorem.
In terms of $theta$ we get:
$$ tantheta geq theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2} geq sintheta $$
for any $thetainleft[0,frac{pi}{2}right)$. Since the involved functions are odd functions the reverse inequality holds over $left(-frac{pi}{2},0right]$, and $lim_{thetato 0}frac{sintheta}{theta}=1$ follows by squeezing.
A slightly different approach might be the following one: let us assume $thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right)$.
By $(2)$ and $(3)$ we have
$$ theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2}geq sintheta $$
hence the sequence ${a_n}_{ngeq 0}$ defined by $a_n = 2^n sinfrac{theta}{2^n}$ is increasing and bounded by $theta$. Any increasing and bounded sequence is convergent, and we actually have $lim_{nto +infty}a_n=theta$ since $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ is a rectifiable curve and for every $ngeq 1$ the $a_n$ term is the length of a polygonal approximation of $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ through $2^{n-1}$ equal segments. In particular
$$ forall thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right), qquad lim_{nto +infty}frac{sinleft(frac{theta}{2^n}right)}{frac{theta}{2^n}} = 1 $$
and this grants that if the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}$ exists, it is $1$. By $sin xleq x$ we get $limsup_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}leq 1$, hence it is enough to show that $liminf_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}geq 1$. We already know that for any $x$ close enough to the origin the sequence $frac{sin x}{x},frac{sin(x/2)}{x/2},frac{sin(x/4)}{x/4},ldots$ is convergent to $1$, hence we are done.
Long story short: $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$ follows from the fact that a circle is a rectifiable curve, and a circle is a rectifiable curve because it is the boundary of a convex, bounded subset of $mathbb{R}^2$. The convexity of the disk follows from the triangle inequality: a disk is a closed ball for the euclidean distance.
$(1)$ relies on this powerful Lemma:
Lemma. If $A,B$ are convex bounded sets in $mathbb{R}^2$ and $Asubsetneq B$, the perimeter of $A$ is less than the perimeter of $B$.
Proof: by boundedness and convexity, $partial A$ and $partial B$ are rectifiable, with lengths $L(A)=mu(partial A),,L(B)=mu(partial B)$. Always by convexity, there is some chord in $B$ that does not meet the interior of $A$ (a tangent to $partial A$ at a smooth point does the job, for instance). Assume that such chord has endpoints $B_1, B_2 in partial B$ and perform a cut along $B_1 B_2$: both the area and the perimeter of $B$ decrease, but $B$ remains a bounded convex set enclosing $A$. Since $A$ can be approximated through a sequence of consecutive cuts, $L(A)<L(B)$ follows.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Usual proofs can be circular, but there is a simple way for proving such inequality.
Let $theta$ be an acute angle and let $O,A,B,C,D,C'$ as in the following diagram:
We may show that:
$$ CD stackrel{(1)}{ geq };stackrel{largefrown}{CB}; stackrel{(2)}{geq } CB,stackrel{(3)}{geq} AB $$
$(1)$: The quadrilateral $OCDC'$ and the circle sector delimited by $O,C,C'$ are two convex sets. Since the circle sector is a subset of the quadrilateral, the perimeter of the circle sector is less than the perimeter of the quadrilateral.
$(2)$: the $CB$ segment is the shortest path between $B$ and $C$.
$(3)$ $CAB$ is a right triangle, hence $CBgeq AB$ by the Pythagorean theorem.
In terms of $theta$ we get:
$$ tantheta geq theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2} geq sintheta $$
for any $thetainleft[0,frac{pi}{2}right)$. Since the involved functions are odd functions the reverse inequality holds over $left(-frac{pi}{2},0right]$, and $lim_{thetato 0}frac{sintheta}{theta}=1$ follows by squeezing.
A slightly different approach might be the following one: let us assume $thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right)$.
By $(2)$ and $(3)$ we have
$$ theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2}geq sintheta $$
hence the sequence ${a_n}_{ngeq 0}$ defined by $a_n = 2^n sinfrac{theta}{2^n}$ is increasing and bounded by $theta$. Any increasing and bounded sequence is convergent, and we actually have $lim_{nto +infty}a_n=theta$ since $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ is a rectifiable curve and for every $ngeq 1$ the $a_n$ term is the length of a polygonal approximation of $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ through $2^{n-1}$ equal segments. In particular
$$ forall thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right), qquad lim_{nto +infty}frac{sinleft(frac{theta}{2^n}right)}{frac{theta}{2^n}} = 1 $$
and this grants that if the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}$ exists, it is $1$. By $sin xleq x$ we get $limsup_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}leq 1$, hence it is enough to show that $liminf_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}geq 1$. We already know that for any $x$ close enough to the origin the sequence $frac{sin x}{x},frac{sin(x/2)}{x/2},frac{sin(x/4)}{x/4},ldots$ is convergent to $1$, hence we are done.
Long story short: $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$ follows from the fact that a circle is a rectifiable curve, and a circle is a rectifiable curve because it is the boundary of a convex, bounded subset of $mathbb{R}^2$. The convexity of the disk follows from the triangle inequality: a disk is a closed ball for the euclidean distance.
$(1)$ relies on this powerful Lemma:
Lemma. If $A,B$ are convex bounded sets in $mathbb{R}^2$ and $Asubsetneq B$, the perimeter of $A$ is less than the perimeter of $B$.
Proof: by boundedness and convexity, $partial A$ and $partial B$ are rectifiable, with lengths $L(A)=mu(partial A),,L(B)=mu(partial B)$. Always by convexity, there is some chord in $B$ that does not meet the interior of $A$ (a tangent to $partial A$ at a smooth point does the job, for instance). Assume that such chord has endpoints $B_1, B_2 in partial B$ and perform a cut along $B_1 B_2$: both the area and the perimeter of $B$ decrease, but $B$ remains a bounded convex set enclosing $A$. Since $A$ can be approximated through a sequence of consecutive cuts, $L(A)<L(B)$ follows.
$endgroup$
Usual proofs can be circular, but there is a simple way for proving such inequality.
Let $theta$ be an acute angle and let $O,A,B,C,D,C'$ as in the following diagram:
We may show that:
$$ CD stackrel{(1)}{ geq };stackrel{largefrown}{CB}; stackrel{(2)}{geq } CB,stackrel{(3)}{geq} AB $$
$(1)$: The quadrilateral $OCDC'$ and the circle sector delimited by $O,C,C'$ are two convex sets. Since the circle sector is a subset of the quadrilateral, the perimeter of the circle sector is less than the perimeter of the quadrilateral.
$(2)$: the $CB$ segment is the shortest path between $B$ and $C$.
$(3)$ $CAB$ is a right triangle, hence $CBgeq AB$ by the Pythagorean theorem.
In terms of $theta$ we get:
$$ tantheta geq theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2} geq sintheta $$
for any $thetainleft[0,frac{pi}{2}right)$. Since the involved functions are odd functions the reverse inequality holds over $left(-frac{pi}{2},0right]$, and $lim_{thetato 0}frac{sintheta}{theta}=1$ follows by squeezing.
A slightly different approach might be the following one: let us assume $thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right)$.
By $(2)$ and $(3)$ we have
$$ theta geq 2sinfrac{theta}{2}geq sintheta $$
hence the sequence ${a_n}_{ngeq 0}$ defined by $a_n = 2^n sinfrac{theta}{2^n}$ is increasing and bounded by $theta$. Any increasing and bounded sequence is convergent, and we actually have $lim_{nto +infty}a_n=theta$ since $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ is a rectifiable curve and for every $ngeq 1$ the $a_n$ term is the length of a polygonal approximation of $stackrel{largefrown}{BC}$ through $2^{n-1}$ equal segments. In particular
$$ forall thetainleft(0,frac{pi}{2}right), qquad lim_{nto +infty}frac{sinleft(frac{theta}{2^n}right)}{frac{theta}{2^n}} = 1 $$
and this grants that if the limit $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}$ exists, it is $1$. By $sin xleq x$ we get $limsup_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}leq 1$, hence it is enough to show that $liminf_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}geq 1$. We already know that for any $x$ close enough to the origin the sequence $frac{sin x}{x},frac{sin(x/2)}{x/2},frac{sin(x/4)}{x/4},ldots$ is convergent to $1$, hence we are done.
Long story short: $lim_{xto 0}frac{sin x}{x}=1$ follows from the fact that a circle is a rectifiable curve, and a circle is a rectifiable curve because it is the boundary of a convex, bounded subset of $mathbb{R}^2$. The convexity of the disk follows from the triangle inequality: a disk is a closed ball for the euclidean distance.
$(1)$ relies on this powerful Lemma:
Lemma. If $A,B$ are convex bounded sets in $mathbb{R}^2$ and $Asubsetneq B$, the perimeter of $A$ is less than the perimeter of $B$.
Proof: by boundedness and convexity, $partial A$ and $partial B$ are rectifiable, with lengths $L(A)=mu(partial A),,L(B)=mu(partial B)$. Always by convexity, there is some chord in $B$ that does not meet the interior of $A$ (a tangent to $partial A$ at a smooth point does the job, for instance). Assume that such chord has endpoints $B_1, B_2 in partial B$ and perform a cut along $B_1 B_2$: both the area and the perimeter of $B$ decrease, but $B$ remains a bounded convex set enclosing $A$. Since $A$ can be approximated through a sequence of consecutive cuts, $L(A)<L(B)$ follows.
edited Jun 13 '17 at 6:35
answered Jun 13 '17 at 0:03
Jack D'AurizioJack D'Aurizio
289k33281660
289k33281660
1
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
1
1
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
$begingroup$
Late to the party, but I think this is the non-circular (no puns intended) way of thinking that has been missing so far. Nice job!
$endgroup$
– String
Jun 13 '17 at 9:05
1
1
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Up voting! I think Archimedes used a weaker form of your Lemma to get the circumference of a circle.
$endgroup$
– CopyPasteIt
Jun 21 '17 at 23:49
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
$begingroup$
Great answer (+1)
$endgroup$
– MathLover
Jan 25 '18 at 23:07
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $sin(x)$ is defined as solution of $frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=-textrm{f}(x)$ with $mathrm f(0)=0,,frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)=C$ initial conditions, so exact solution is $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$.
Define second derivative as
$$
begin{align*}
frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}-frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}{Delta x}}&=\=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-2cdot mathrm f(x-Delta x)+mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x^2}}
end{align*}
$$
we can easy check this limit for any (?) functions. Similarly, we can define the first derivative for right, middle and left points:
$$
frac{d}{dx}textrm{f}(x)left{
begin{aligned}
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}}
\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{2cdotDelta x}}
end{aligned}
right.
$$
Let's use the finite elements method assuming $Td=Delta x,,y_n=mathrm f(x),,y_{n-1}=mathrm f(x-Delta x),,y_{n-2}=mathrm f(x-2cdot Delta x)$
Override differential equation as
$$
frac{y_n-2cdot y_{n-1}+y_{n-2}}{Td^2}=-y_n
$$
Now solve this implicit equation for $y_n$ to obtain explicit recurrence relation:
$$
y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
$$
Using arbitrarily small but non-zero quantity Td we can plot exponentially decaying sampled sine function (because the poles are inside the unit circle of the transfer function corresponding to the given recurrence relation).
Similarly we write three systems for the initial conditions:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-1}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-2}}{2cdot Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
Solve this sequence of equations for $y_{n-1}$ and $y_{n-2}$:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1-Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+frac{Td^2}{2}right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}
end{aligned}right.
$$
At zero point $y_n=mathrm f(0)=0$ and we can see linear dependence:
$$
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td
end{aligned}
$$
for all three solutions. Replace back:
$$
begin{array}{l}
mathrm f(0)&=0\
mathrm f(0-Delta x) &= -Ccdot Delta x\
mathrm f(0-2cdot Delta x) &= -2cdot Ccdot Delta x
end{array}
$$
So all three $frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)$ limits is equal to $C$ at $x=0$ and in accordance with $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$ by definition we can write
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(0)-mathrm f(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{0-(-C cdot Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
Thus
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(0)-Ccdotsin(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{Ccdotsin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=Ccdotlim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
and $lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=1$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $sin(x)$ is defined as solution of $frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=-textrm{f}(x)$ with $mathrm f(0)=0,,frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)=C$ initial conditions, so exact solution is $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$.
Define second derivative as
$$
begin{align*}
frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}-frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}{Delta x}}&=\=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-2cdot mathrm f(x-Delta x)+mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x^2}}
end{align*}
$$
we can easy check this limit for any (?) functions. Similarly, we can define the first derivative for right, middle and left points:
$$
frac{d}{dx}textrm{f}(x)left{
begin{aligned}
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}}
\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{2cdotDelta x}}
end{aligned}
right.
$$
Let's use the finite elements method assuming $Td=Delta x,,y_n=mathrm f(x),,y_{n-1}=mathrm f(x-Delta x),,y_{n-2}=mathrm f(x-2cdot Delta x)$
Override differential equation as
$$
frac{y_n-2cdot y_{n-1}+y_{n-2}}{Td^2}=-y_n
$$
Now solve this implicit equation for $y_n$ to obtain explicit recurrence relation:
$$
y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
$$
Using arbitrarily small but non-zero quantity Td we can plot exponentially decaying sampled sine function (because the poles are inside the unit circle of the transfer function corresponding to the given recurrence relation).
Similarly we write three systems for the initial conditions:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-1}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-2}}{2cdot Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
Solve this sequence of equations for $y_{n-1}$ and $y_{n-2}$:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1-Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+frac{Td^2}{2}right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}
end{aligned}right.
$$
At zero point $y_n=mathrm f(0)=0$ and we can see linear dependence:
$$
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td
end{aligned}
$$
for all three solutions. Replace back:
$$
begin{array}{l}
mathrm f(0)&=0\
mathrm f(0-Delta x) &= -Ccdot Delta x\
mathrm f(0-2cdot Delta x) &= -2cdot Ccdot Delta x
end{array}
$$
So all three $frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)$ limits is equal to $C$ at $x=0$ and in accordance with $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$ by definition we can write
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(0)-mathrm f(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{0-(-C cdot Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
Thus
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(0)-Ccdotsin(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{Ccdotsin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=Ccdotlim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
and $lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=1$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $sin(x)$ is defined as solution of $frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=-textrm{f}(x)$ with $mathrm f(0)=0,,frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)=C$ initial conditions, so exact solution is $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$.
Define second derivative as
$$
begin{align*}
frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}-frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}{Delta x}}&=\=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-2cdot mathrm f(x-Delta x)+mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x^2}}
end{align*}
$$
we can easy check this limit for any (?) functions. Similarly, we can define the first derivative for right, middle and left points:
$$
frac{d}{dx}textrm{f}(x)left{
begin{aligned}
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}}
\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{2cdotDelta x}}
end{aligned}
right.
$$
Let's use the finite elements method assuming $Td=Delta x,,y_n=mathrm f(x),,y_{n-1}=mathrm f(x-Delta x),,y_{n-2}=mathrm f(x-2cdot Delta x)$
Override differential equation as
$$
frac{y_n-2cdot y_{n-1}+y_{n-2}}{Td^2}=-y_n
$$
Now solve this implicit equation for $y_n$ to obtain explicit recurrence relation:
$$
y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
$$
Using arbitrarily small but non-zero quantity Td we can plot exponentially decaying sampled sine function (because the poles are inside the unit circle of the transfer function corresponding to the given recurrence relation).
Similarly we write three systems for the initial conditions:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-1}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-2}}{2cdot Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
Solve this sequence of equations for $y_{n-1}$ and $y_{n-2}$:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1-Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+frac{Td^2}{2}right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}
end{aligned}right.
$$
At zero point $y_n=mathrm f(0)=0$ and we can see linear dependence:
$$
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td
end{aligned}
$$
for all three solutions. Replace back:
$$
begin{array}{l}
mathrm f(0)&=0\
mathrm f(0-Delta x) &= -Ccdot Delta x\
mathrm f(0-2cdot Delta x) &= -2cdot Ccdot Delta x
end{array}
$$
So all three $frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)$ limits is equal to $C$ at $x=0$ and in accordance with $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$ by definition we can write
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(0)-mathrm f(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{0-(-C cdot Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
Thus
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(0)-Ccdotsin(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{Ccdotsin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=Ccdotlim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
and $lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=1$
$endgroup$
Let $sin(x)$ is defined as solution of $frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=-textrm{f}(x)$ with $mathrm f(0)=0,,frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)=C$ initial conditions, so exact solution is $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$.
Define second derivative as
$$
begin{align*}
frac{d^2}{dx^2}textrm{f}(x)=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}-frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}{Delta x}}&=\=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-2cdot mathrm f(x-Delta x)+mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x^2}}
end{align*}
$$
we can easy check this limit for any (?) functions. Similarly, we can define the first derivative for right, middle and left points:
$$
frac{d}{dx}textrm{f}(x)left{
begin{aligned}
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-Delta x)}{Delta x}}
\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x-Delta x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{Delta x}}\
&=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(x)-mathrm f(x-2cdotDelta x)}{2cdotDelta x}}
end{aligned}
right.
$$
Let's use the finite elements method assuming $Td=Delta x,,y_n=mathrm f(x),,y_{n-1}=mathrm f(x-Delta x),,y_{n-2}=mathrm f(x-2cdot Delta x)$
Override differential equation as
$$
frac{y_n-2cdot y_{n-1}+y_{n-2}}{Td^2}=-y_n
$$
Now solve this implicit equation for $y_n$ to obtain explicit recurrence relation:
$$
y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
$$
Using arbitrarily small but non-zero quantity Td we can plot exponentially decaying sampled sine function (because the poles are inside the unit circle of the transfer function corresponding to the given recurrence relation).
Similarly we write three systems for the initial conditions:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-1}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_n = frac{2cdot y_{n-1}-y_{n-2}}{1+Td^2}
\
&C=frac{y_n-y_{n-2}}{2cdot Td}
end{aligned}right.
$$
Solve this sequence of equations for $y_{n-1}$ and $y_{n-2}$:
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1-Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+Td^2right)
end{aligned}right.
$$
$$
left{
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td + y_{n}cdotleft(1+frac{Td^2}{2}right)\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td + y_{n}
end{aligned}right.
$$
At zero point $y_n=mathrm f(0)=0$ and we can see linear dependence:
$$
begin{aligned}
&y_{n-1} = -Ccdot Td\
&y_{n-2}=-2cdot Ccdot Td
end{aligned}
$$
for all three solutions. Replace back:
$$
begin{array}{l}
mathrm f(0)&=0\
mathrm f(0-Delta x) &= -Ccdot Delta x\
mathrm f(0-2cdot Delta x) &= -2cdot Ccdot Delta x
end{array}
$$
So all three $frac{d}{dx}mathrm f(0)$ limits is equal to $C$ at $x=0$ and in accordance with $mathrm f(x)=Ccdotsin(x)$ by definition we can write
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{mathrm f(0)-mathrm f(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{0-(-C cdot Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
Thus
$$
lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(0)-Ccdotsin(0-Delta x)}{Delta x}}=lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{Ccdotsin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=Ccdotlim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=C
$$
and $lim_{Delta xto 0}{frac{sin(Delta x)}{Delta x}}=1$
answered Aug 19 '16 at 20:14
Timur ZhoraevTimur Zhoraev
30436
30436
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
While this is an exceptionally neat answer, it is not really appropriate for the level (high school) on which I asked the question, given that computing this limit is an introductory exercise into differentials. Plus we defined $sin$ geometrically (i.e. though the relationship between angles and sides in a right triangle), so your prerequisites must be established first.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Aug 19 '16 at 20:40
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl do you realize that users with different levels and mathematical background may check this question? The answer given above might be helpful for them.
$endgroup$
– Xam
Sep 23 '17 at 3:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simple one is using sandwich theorem Which demonstrated earlier.In this method you have to show that $frac{sin x}{x} $ lies between other two functions. As $x longrightarrow 0$ both of them will tends to ONE.
Then as in the case of sandwich (if both the bread part go to one stomach the middle portion will also go to the same stomach) $frac{sin x}{x}$ will go to ONE.
You can use geogebra to see the visualization of this phenomena using geogebra.First you input $sin x$ and $x$ and observe that near to $0$ values of $sin x$ and $x$ are same.
Secondly input $frac{sin x}{x}$ then observe function is approaching to $1$ as $x$ tends to $0$
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simple one is using sandwich theorem Which demonstrated earlier.In this method you have to show that $frac{sin x}{x} $ lies between other two functions. As $x longrightarrow 0$ both of them will tends to ONE.
Then as in the case of sandwich (if both the bread part go to one stomach the middle portion will also go to the same stomach) $frac{sin x}{x}$ will go to ONE.
You can use geogebra to see the visualization of this phenomena using geogebra.First you input $sin x$ and $x$ and observe that near to $0$ values of $sin x$ and $x$ are same.
Secondly input $frac{sin x}{x}$ then observe function is approaching to $1$ as $x$ tends to $0$
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simple one is using sandwich theorem Which demonstrated earlier.In this method you have to show that $frac{sin x}{x} $ lies between other two functions. As $x longrightarrow 0$ both of them will tends to ONE.
Then as in the case of sandwich (if both the bread part go to one stomach the middle portion will also go to the same stomach) $frac{sin x}{x}$ will go to ONE.
You can use geogebra to see the visualization of this phenomena using geogebra.First you input $sin x$ and $x$ and observe that near to $0$ values of $sin x$ and $x$ are same.
Secondly input $frac{sin x}{x}$ then observe function is approaching to $1$ as $x$ tends to $0$
$endgroup$
Simple one is using sandwich theorem Which demonstrated earlier.In this method you have to show that $frac{sin x}{x} $ lies between other two functions. As $x longrightarrow 0$ both of them will tends to ONE.
Then as in the case of sandwich (if both the bread part go to one stomach the middle portion will also go to the same stomach) $frac{sin x}{x}$ will go to ONE.
You can use geogebra to see the visualization of this phenomena using geogebra.First you input $sin x$ and $x$ and observe that near to $0$ values of $sin x$ and $x$ are same.
Secondly input $frac{sin x}{x}$ then observe function is approaching to $1$ as $x$ tends to $0$
edited Dec 13 '14 at 10:00
Davide Giraudo
126k16150261
126k16150261
answered Sep 15 '14 at 2:56
MadhuMadhu
7191924
7191924
4
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
4
4
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
$begingroup$
This describes the Sandwich Theorem, but does not answer the question. At best, this should be a comment to the question,
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 13 '14 at 13:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Originally posted on the proofs without words post, here is a simple image that explains the derivative of $sin(x)$, which as we all know, is directly related to the limit at hand.
If one is not so convinced, take a look at the above picture and notice that if $upm h$ is in the first quadrant, then
$$frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h<cos(x)<frac{sin(x-h)-sin(x)}{-h}$$
Notice that
$$
begin{align}frac{d}{dx}sin(x)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h\text{picture above}&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x)cos(h)+cos(x)sin(h)-sin(x)}h\cos(x)&=lim_{hto0}sin(x)frac{cos(h)-1}h+cos(x)frac{sin(h)}h\cos(0)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(h)}hend{align}
$$
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Originally posted on the proofs without words post, here is a simple image that explains the derivative of $sin(x)$, which as we all know, is directly related to the limit at hand.
If one is not so convinced, take a look at the above picture and notice that if $upm h$ is in the first quadrant, then
$$frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h<cos(x)<frac{sin(x-h)-sin(x)}{-h}$$
Notice that
$$
begin{align}frac{d}{dx}sin(x)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h\text{picture above}&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x)cos(h)+cos(x)sin(h)-sin(x)}h\cos(x)&=lim_{hto0}sin(x)frac{cos(h)-1}h+cos(x)frac{sin(h)}h\cos(0)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(h)}hend{align}
$$
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Originally posted on the proofs without words post, here is a simple image that explains the derivative of $sin(x)$, which as we all know, is directly related to the limit at hand.
If one is not so convinced, take a look at the above picture and notice that if $upm h$ is in the first quadrant, then
$$frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h<cos(x)<frac{sin(x-h)-sin(x)}{-h}$$
Notice that
$$
begin{align}frac{d}{dx}sin(x)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h\text{picture above}&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x)cos(h)+cos(x)sin(h)-sin(x)}h\cos(x)&=lim_{hto0}sin(x)frac{cos(h)-1}h+cos(x)frac{sin(h)}h\cos(0)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(h)}hend{align}
$$
$endgroup$
Originally posted on the proofs without words post, here is a simple image that explains the derivative of $sin(x)$, which as we all know, is directly related to the limit at hand.
If one is not so convinced, take a look at the above picture and notice that if $upm h$ is in the first quadrant, then
$$frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h<cos(x)<frac{sin(x-h)-sin(x)}{-h}$$
Notice that
$$
begin{align}frac{d}{dx}sin(x)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x+h)-sin(x)}h\text{picture above}&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(x)cos(h)+cos(x)sin(h)-sin(x)}h\cos(x)&=lim_{hto0}sin(x)frac{cos(h)-1}h+cos(x)frac{sin(h)}h\cos(0)&=lim_{hto0}frac{sin(h)}hend{align}
$$
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:58
Community♦
1
1
answered Nov 15 '16 at 22:52
Simply Beautiful ArtSimply Beautiful Art
50.5k578181
50.5k578181
2
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
1
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
2
2
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
$begingroup$
Note that your reason is circular: In order to prove the derivative of $sin$, we need to know the limit of $sin hover h.$ Attempting to prove the limit the other way round is counterproductive.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Nov 16 '16 at 0:47
1
1
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl no actually, the whole point of this was a geometric proof of the fact.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 16 '16 at 17:23
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl If you are still unsatisfied about it, there is a whole post on the topic.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Nov 17 '16 at 0:44
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl Since you still seem unhappy, I've added a better "squeeze theorem" type thing for the derivative of $sin(x)$.
$endgroup$
– Simply Beautiful Art
Jan 5 '17 at 23:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is another approach.
(1)
(2)
In the large triangle, $$tan(theta)=frac{opp}{adg}=frac{z}{1}=z$$ So the triangle has height $$z=tan(theta)$$ and base $1$
so it's area is $$Area(big triangle)=frac{1}{2}z=frac{1}{2}tan(theta)$$
Next the sector area as a fraction of the entire circle, the sector is (see the right hand side of picture (1))$$frac{theta}{2pi}$$ of the entire circle so it's area is
$$Area(sector)=frac{theta}{2pi}*(pi)(1)^2=frac{theta}{2}$$
The triangle within the sector has height $y$. But $y=frac{y}{1}=frac{opp}{hyp}=sin(theta)$ so the small triangle has height $y=sin(theta)$ and base $1$ so its area is $$Area(small triangle)=frac{1}{2}y=frac{1}{2}sin(theta)$$
Now we can use the sandwich theorem as $$Area(big triangle)geq Area(sector)geq Area(small triangle)$$
using the equations we worked out above this becomes
$$frac{tan(theta)}{2}geqfrac{theta}{2}geqfrac{sin(theta)}{2}$$ now multipliying through by two and using the fact that $$tan(theta)=frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}$$ we get that
$$frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}geqthetageqsin(theta)$$
taking reciprocals changes the inequalities so we have that
$$frac{cos(theta)}{sin(theta)}leqfrac{1}{theta}leqfrac{1}{sin(theta)}$$
now finally multiplying through by $sin(theta)$ we get $$cos(theta)leqfrac{sin(theta)}{theta}leq1$$
Now $$lim limits_{theta to 0}cos(theta)=1$$ and$$lim limits_{theta to 0}1=1$$
so by the sandwhich theorem $$lim limits_{theta to 0}frac{sin(theta)}{theta}=1$$ also. QED
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is another approach.
(1)
(2)
In the large triangle, $$tan(theta)=frac{opp}{adg}=frac{z}{1}=z$$ So the triangle has height $$z=tan(theta)$$ and base $1$
so it's area is $$Area(big triangle)=frac{1}{2}z=frac{1}{2}tan(theta)$$
Next the sector area as a fraction of the entire circle, the sector is (see the right hand side of picture (1))$$frac{theta}{2pi}$$ of the entire circle so it's area is
$$Area(sector)=frac{theta}{2pi}*(pi)(1)^2=frac{theta}{2}$$
The triangle within the sector has height $y$. But $y=frac{y}{1}=frac{opp}{hyp}=sin(theta)$ so the small triangle has height $y=sin(theta)$ and base $1$ so its area is $$Area(small triangle)=frac{1}{2}y=frac{1}{2}sin(theta)$$
Now we can use the sandwich theorem as $$Area(big triangle)geq Area(sector)geq Area(small triangle)$$
using the equations we worked out above this becomes
$$frac{tan(theta)}{2}geqfrac{theta}{2}geqfrac{sin(theta)}{2}$$ now multipliying through by two and using the fact that $$tan(theta)=frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}$$ we get that
$$frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}geqthetageqsin(theta)$$
taking reciprocals changes the inequalities so we have that
$$frac{cos(theta)}{sin(theta)}leqfrac{1}{theta}leqfrac{1}{sin(theta)}$$
now finally multiplying through by $sin(theta)$ we get $$cos(theta)leqfrac{sin(theta)}{theta}leq1$$
Now $$lim limits_{theta to 0}cos(theta)=1$$ and$$lim limits_{theta to 0}1=1$$
so by the sandwhich theorem $$lim limits_{theta to 0}frac{sin(theta)}{theta}=1$$ also. QED
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is another approach.
(1)
(2)
In the large triangle, $$tan(theta)=frac{opp}{adg}=frac{z}{1}=z$$ So the triangle has height $$z=tan(theta)$$ and base $1$
so it's area is $$Area(big triangle)=frac{1}{2}z=frac{1}{2}tan(theta)$$
Next the sector area as a fraction of the entire circle, the sector is (see the right hand side of picture (1))$$frac{theta}{2pi}$$ of the entire circle so it's area is
$$Area(sector)=frac{theta}{2pi}*(pi)(1)^2=frac{theta}{2}$$
The triangle within the sector has height $y$. But $y=frac{y}{1}=frac{opp}{hyp}=sin(theta)$ so the small triangle has height $y=sin(theta)$ and base $1$ so its area is $$Area(small triangle)=frac{1}{2}y=frac{1}{2}sin(theta)$$
Now we can use the sandwich theorem as $$Area(big triangle)geq Area(sector)geq Area(small triangle)$$
using the equations we worked out above this becomes
$$frac{tan(theta)}{2}geqfrac{theta}{2}geqfrac{sin(theta)}{2}$$ now multipliying through by two and using the fact that $$tan(theta)=frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}$$ we get that
$$frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}geqthetageqsin(theta)$$
taking reciprocals changes the inequalities so we have that
$$frac{cos(theta)}{sin(theta)}leqfrac{1}{theta}leqfrac{1}{sin(theta)}$$
now finally multiplying through by $sin(theta)$ we get $$cos(theta)leqfrac{sin(theta)}{theta}leq1$$
Now $$lim limits_{theta to 0}cos(theta)=1$$ and$$lim limits_{theta to 0}1=1$$
so by the sandwhich theorem $$lim limits_{theta to 0}frac{sin(theta)}{theta}=1$$ also. QED
$endgroup$
Here is another approach.
(1)
(2)
In the large triangle, $$tan(theta)=frac{opp}{adg}=frac{z}{1}=z$$ So the triangle has height $$z=tan(theta)$$ and base $1$
so it's area is $$Area(big triangle)=frac{1}{2}z=frac{1}{2}tan(theta)$$
Next the sector area as a fraction of the entire circle, the sector is (see the right hand side of picture (1))$$frac{theta}{2pi}$$ of the entire circle so it's area is
$$Area(sector)=frac{theta}{2pi}*(pi)(1)^2=frac{theta}{2}$$
The triangle within the sector has height $y$. But $y=frac{y}{1}=frac{opp}{hyp}=sin(theta)$ so the small triangle has height $y=sin(theta)$ and base $1$ so its area is $$Area(small triangle)=frac{1}{2}y=frac{1}{2}sin(theta)$$
Now we can use the sandwich theorem as $$Area(big triangle)geq Area(sector)geq Area(small triangle)$$
using the equations we worked out above this becomes
$$frac{tan(theta)}{2}geqfrac{theta}{2}geqfrac{sin(theta)}{2}$$ now multipliying through by two and using the fact that $$tan(theta)=frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}$$ we get that
$$frac{sin(theta)}{cos(theta)}geqthetageqsin(theta)$$
taking reciprocals changes the inequalities so we have that
$$frac{cos(theta)}{sin(theta)}leqfrac{1}{theta}leqfrac{1}{sin(theta)}$$
now finally multiplying through by $sin(theta)$ we get $$cos(theta)leqfrac{sin(theta)}{theta}leq1$$
Now $$lim limits_{theta to 0}cos(theta)=1$$ and$$lim limits_{theta to 0}1=1$$
so by the sandwhich theorem $$lim limits_{theta to 0}frac{sin(theta)}{theta}=1$$ also. QED
answered Mar 30 '17 at 19:30
user395952
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a proof to those familiar with power series.
The definition of $sin(x)$ is
$$sin(x) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}h^{2k+1}$$
Therefore we get
$$begin{align} lim_{x to 0} frac{sin(x)}{x} &= lim_{x to 0} frac{sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}x^{2k+1}}{x} \&= lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 + lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 end{align}$$
where we have used the fact that the power series $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k}$ has radius of convergence $R=infty$ and therefore is continuous on $mathbb R$. This allows us to take the limit inside and we get
$$lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} = sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} 0^{2k} = 0$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
1
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a proof to those familiar with power series.
The definition of $sin(x)$ is
$$sin(x) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}h^{2k+1}$$
Therefore we get
$$begin{align} lim_{x to 0} frac{sin(x)}{x} &= lim_{x to 0} frac{sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}x^{2k+1}}{x} \&= lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 + lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 end{align}$$
where we have used the fact that the power series $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k}$ has radius of convergence $R=infty$ and therefore is continuous on $mathbb R$. This allows us to take the limit inside and we get
$$lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} = sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} 0^{2k} = 0$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
1
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a proof to those familiar with power series.
The definition of $sin(x)$ is
$$sin(x) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}h^{2k+1}$$
Therefore we get
$$begin{align} lim_{x to 0} frac{sin(x)}{x} &= lim_{x to 0} frac{sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}x^{2k+1}}{x} \&= lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 + lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 end{align}$$
where we have used the fact that the power series $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k}$ has radius of convergence $R=infty$ and therefore is continuous on $mathbb R$. This allows us to take the limit inside and we get
$$lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} = sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} 0^{2k} = 0$$
$endgroup$
Here is a proof to those familiar with power series.
The definition of $sin(x)$ is
$$sin(x) = sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}h^{2k+1}$$
Therefore we get
$$begin{align} lim_{x to 0} frac{sin(x)}{x} &= lim_{x to 0} frac{sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!}x^{2k+1}}{x} \&= lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=0}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 + lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} \&= 1 end{align}$$
where we have used the fact that the power series $sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k}$ has radius of convergence $R=infty$ and therefore is continuous on $mathbb R$. This allows us to take the limit inside and we get
$$lim_{x to 0} sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} x^{2k} = sum_{k=1}^infty frac{(-1)^k}{(2k+1)!} 0^{2k} = 0$$
answered Jan 14 '18 at 18:08
philmcolephilmcole
841419
841419
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
1
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
1
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
$begingroup$
Compare to this answer and this answer, which both use power series.
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Jan 14 '18 at 19:48
1
1
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
$begingroup$
The premise of the question is not to use power series.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:34
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We may use a linear approximation for this limit. The following expression comes straight out of the equation of a line that is $y=mx+b$. Using the fact that $m=dfrac{d}{dx}[f(x)]$ $$f(x) approx f(a) + f'(a)(x-a)$$In this case $f(x)=sin x$ and $a=0$ $implies sin x approx f(0)+cos 0 (x-0)=x longleftrightarrow sin x approx x$. The following graph better illustrates this tangent line approximation.
Since, $sin x approx x implies displaystyle lim_{x to 0} dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We may use a linear approximation for this limit. The following expression comes straight out of the equation of a line that is $y=mx+b$. Using the fact that $m=dfrac{d}{dx}[f(x)]$ $$f(x) approx f(a) + f'(a)(x-a)$$In this case $f(x)=sin x$ and $a=0$ $implies sin x approx f(0)+cos 0 (x-0)=x longleftrightarrow sin x approx x$. The following graph better illustrates this tangent line approximation.
Since, $sin x approx x implies displaystyle lim_{x to 0} dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We may use a linear approximation for this limit. The following expression comes straight out of the equation of a line that is $y=mx+b$. Using the fact that $m=dfrac{d}{dx}[f(x)]$ $$f(x) approx f(a) + f'(a)(x-a)$$In this case $f(x)=sin x$ and $a=0$ $implies sin x approx f(0)+cos 0 (x-0)=x longleftrightarrow sin x approx x$. The following graph better illustrates this tangent line approximation.
Since, $sin x approx x implies displaystyle lim_{x to 0} dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
$endgroup$
We may use a linear approximation for this limit. The following expression comes straight out of the equation of a line that is $y=mx+b$. Using the fact that $m=dfrac{d}{dx}[f(x)]$ $$f(x) approx f(a) + f'(a)(x-a)$$In this case $f(x)=sin x$ and $a=0$ $implies sin x approx f(0)+cos 0 (x-0)=x longleftrightarrow sin x approx x$. The following graph better illustrates this tangent line approximation.
Since, $sin x approx x implies displaystyle lim_{x to 0} dfrac{sin x}{x}=1$. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
answered Dec 4 '18 at 5:17
Paras KhoslaParas Khosla
9810
9810
2
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
2
2
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
This is not a proof unless you can justify all these approximation steps.
$endgroup$
– FUZxxl
Dec 4 '18 at 12:33
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
$begingroup$
To find that $frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)=cos(x)$ for the Taylor Series usually requires knowing the limit we are trying to find. In fact, $$left.frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x}sin(x)right|_{x=0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)-sin(0)}{x-0}=lim_{xto0}frac{sin(x)}{x}$$
$endgroup$
– robjohn♦
Dec 7 '18 at 20:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We can also use Euler's formula to prove the limit:
$$e^{ix} = cos x + isin x$$
$$lim_{xto 0}dfrac{sin x}{x} = implies lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{ix}- e^{-ix}}{2i x}$$
$$= lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{2ix}-1}{2ix}timesdfrac 1{ e^{ix} }= 1 times 1 = 1$$
since:
$lim_{f(x)to 0}dfrac{e^{f(x)}-1}{f(x)} = 1$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We can also use Euler's formula to prove the limit:
$$e^{ix} = cos x + isin x$$
$$lim_{xto 0}dfrac{sin x}{x} = implies lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{ix}- e^{-ix}}{2i x}$$
$$= lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{2ix}-1}{2ix}timesdfrac 1{ e^{ix} }= 1 times 1 = 1$$
since:
$lim_{f(x)to 0}dfrac{e^{f(x)}-1}{f(x)} = 1$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We can also use Euler's formula to prove the limit:
$$e^{ix} = cos x + isin x$$
$$lim_{xto 0}dfrac{sin x}{x} = implies lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{ix}- e^{-ix}}{2i x}$$
$$= lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{2ix}-1}{2ix}timesdfrac 1{ e^{ix} }= 1 times 1 = 1$$
since:
$lim_{f(x)to 0}dfrac{e^{f(x)}-1}{f(x)} = 1$
$endgroup$
We can also use Euler's formula to prove the limit:
$$e^{ix} = cos x + isin x$$
$$lim_{xto 0}dfrac{sin x}{x} = implies lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{ix}- e^{-ix}}{2i x}$$
$$= lim_{xto 0} dfrac{e^{2ix}-1}{2ix}timesdfrac 1{ e^{ix} }= 1 times 1 = 1$$
since:
$lim_{f(x)to 0}dfrac{e^{f(x)}-1}{f(x)} = 1$
answered Jan 13 at 12:24
AbcdAbcd
3,02821235
3,02821235
add a comment |
add a comment |
49
$begingroup$
l'Hôpital's rule is easiest: $limlimits_{xto0}sin x = 0$ and $limlimits_{xto0}x = 0$, so $limlimits_{xto 0}frac{sin x}x = limlimits_{xto 0}frac{cos x}1 = 1 $
$endgroup$
– Joren
Oct 23 '11 at 20:41
140
$begingroup$
@Joren: I'm extremely curious how will you prove then that $sin ' x = cos x$
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 9:10
3
$begingroup$
@FUZx44xl: sure, but to be fare you first prove that $sin xsim x$ with $xto 0$. Geometrically
$endgroup$
– Ilya
Oct 24 '11 at 15:42
11
$begingroup$
Recent changes in what? The definition of $lim$, of $sin$ or of $0$?
$endgroup$
– Asaf Karagila♦
Dec 18 '13 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
@FUZxxl:Exactly what was your definition by "geometrical means"?
$endgroup$
– Platonix
Dec 22 '13 at 18:45