Why would you use t=tanx when the angle is x?depends or
Because we are dealing with squares.Why would you use t=tanx when the angle is x?
Meh, why not include both for reference sakes? btw is there one for sin^2xBecause we are dealing with squares.
I think
is nicer to work with than
If there are any odd powers floating around though you will get square roots involved, which are why we normally use tan(x/2) I guess.
Meh, why not include both for reference sakes? btw is there one for sin^2x
Two issues with that:Because we are dealing with squares.
I think
is nicer to work with than
If there are any odd powers floating around though you will get square roots involved, which are why we normally use tan(x/2) I guess.
I was fairly sure things likeTwo issues with that:
(I) That formula is not mentioned in the syllabus, so you would have to first justify its use
(II) If students believe they can use that formula whenever they see a cos^2 (x), they are going to get into a jam if they come across an exam question that has both a cos^2 AND a straight cos.
Possible formula's:Like for cos^2 x and the others
I'm afraid not. And the current syllabus was published in 1982, so unless you're more ancient than me ....I was fairly sure things like
were in syllabus?
Provided they justify it that way. They can't just quote the formula.of course one CAN use because is essentially . don't tell me 3U students do not need to know
I'm guessing they use , so thatIn the solutions, I always see them just instantly convert (cosx)^2, (sinx)^2 and (tanx)^2 into the t-formula. I assume they just use double angle formula then convert that. Do I have to show this? Btw do they use t=tanx or t=tanx/2
Fair enough. Anyway, as integrand pointed out these are trivial consequences of the pythagorean identity.I'm afraid not. And the current syllabus was published in 1982, so unless you're more ancient than me ....
And I'm sure all one would need to do is draw a right-angled triangle with sides labelled appropriately to justify the use of those formulae.Fair enough. Anyway, as integrand pointed out these are trivial consequences of the pythagorean identity.
I do find it silly that these aren't allowed to be stated though, given that they are natural steps in the derivation of the "standard t-formulae".