
Algebra PreAlgebra and Basic Algebra Math Forum 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
May 28th, 2008, 03:50 AM  #1 
Newbie Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 20 Thanks: 0  Why sin(x) expansion needs x to be mentioned in radians?
I understand that in sin(x) we can express the angle x in any manner, say radians or degrees. for example sin(90) = sin(PI/2) = 1, because in both cases 90 or PI/2 mean right angle. Similarly, sin(180 degrees) = sin(PI) = 0, because in both cases we mean to say that it is sine of straight angle. But, when we see the Taylor series expansion of sin(x), i.e. x  x^3 / 3! + x^5 / 5!  .... we find that only the radian values provide the correct values. So, just to convince myself, I wanted to replace x in the above series with PI and wanted to get the sum to be 0. But I could not do it. Could somoone please help me to prove that x  x^3 / 3! + x^5 / 5!  .... = 0 when x = PI ? Also, is there any concept involved during Taylor series expansion that clearly tells us that this series would yield correct values only for angles mentioned in radians? 
May 28th, 2008, 05:02 AM  #2 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 937 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms 
Essentially all computational formulas use angles in radians. Degrees and gradients are just conveniences.

May 28th, 2008, 06:43 AM  #3 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2007 From: Chicago Posts: 1,701 Thanks: 3 
The value of sine and cosine come from an analysis of the unit circle, so r=1 unit. Of course, c=2π in this case. "radians" as a sort of quasiunit come out of this. They aren't actually a unit, 1 radian = 1.

June 1st, 2008, 06:03 AM  #4  
Newbie Joined: May 2008 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0  Re: Why sin(x) expansion needs x to be mentioned in radians? Quote:
As for your Taylor series, I think it's natural to start from how the series is derived in the first place to show you why it works. Taylor's theorem says that you can approximate any function f(x) linearly around a point a as follows: f(x) = f(a) + f'(a)(xa) + f''(a)(xa)^2/2! + f'''(a)(xa)^3/3! + ... To approximate sin(x), we let f(x) = sin(x). Let's do it around a = 0. (Doing it around another a will get you a similar power series, but shifted. We do it around a = 0 for simplicity.) we get sin(x) = sin(0) + cos(0)(x  0)  sin(0)(x  0)^2/2!  cos(0)(x  0)^3/3! ... Every term with a sin or sin in it drops out, because sin(0) = 0. We're left with: x  x^3/3! + x^5/5!  x^7/7! + ... But remember that this is an infinite series, so the result is better approximated the more terms we have. With a finite number of terms, you're going to get something that resembles the true value of the function, but it's not going to be exact. This is reflected in the statement of Taylor's theorem, which states that a function is equal to a certain sum (the Taylor polynomial) plus a remainder. The remainder is your error. A better way to see that your approximation of sin(pi) really gives you the answer you want would be to calculate it for increasingly more accurate (longer) Taylor polynomials and note that the result approaches sin(pi).  
June 1st, 2008, 07:02 AM  #5  
Newbie Joined: May 2008 Posts: 19 Thanks: 0  Re: Why sin(x) expansion needs x to be mentioned in radians? Quote:
One could also think about the unit of sin(x). If x is not measured in radians, the expression sin(x)=xx^3/3!+x^5/5!... doesn't make much sense. (What does it mean to add different powers of the unit degree? Not much.) If one uses the right forms of the derivatives, which have the unit 1/degree, then the degrees disappear in the formula, and sin is dimensionless.  
June 1st, 2008, 08:02 AM  #6 
Newbie Joined: May 2008 Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 
Right... My explanation of the Taylor series wasn't meant to address radians/degrees, but rather why he wasn't getting the correct value for sin(pi) using the series. 
June 1st, 2008, 08:41 AM  #7  
Newbie Joined: May 2008 Posts: 19 Thanks: 0  Quote:
E: By the way: I wonder if it's possible to derive the taylor series without using the Taylor's theorem. (For example by somehow geometrically approximating "the opposite side".) That could be interesting  
June 2nd, 2008, 04:17 AM  #8 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,045 Thanks: 1618 
If you use just six terms of the series and evaluate it for x = pi, you will get 0.000, correct to three decimal places.

January 3rd, 2018, 04:17 AM  #9 
Newbie Joined: Jan 2018 From: Rajahmundry Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 
The series converges for x< pi/2. For other angles, it should be transformed to make x< pi/2, using trigonometry Reference: Computer oriented numerical methods by Rajaraman Last edited by skipjack; January 3rd, 2018 at 08:20 PM. 
January 3rd, 2018, 04:21 AM  #10 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 405 Thanks: 140  The series converges for all real numbers, not just the ones with $x<\pi/2$.
Last edited by skipjack; January 3rd, 2018 at 08:19 PM. 

Tags 
expansion, mentioned, radians, sinx 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Solving using radians  bentroy743  Algebra  1  December 29th, 2012 03:26 PM 
radians  milly2012  Algebra  1  April 29th, 2012 08:26 AM 
Radians?  Phazon  Calculus  10  June 6th, 2011 05:08 PM 
trigonometry radians  nicolodn  Algebra  8  October 21st, 2010 05:47 AM 
Degrees and Radians  axelle  Algebra  7  October 22nd, 2007 01:48 PM 