Talk:Trigonometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trigonometry is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.
	Mathematics grading:	B Class	Top Importance	Field: Geometry and topology
A vital article.

Trigonometry is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Mnemonics 2 Initialization 3 Definition of Sine and Cosine 4 Rational Trigonometry 5 Lagadha & trigonometry 6 Links 7 Written in "Wales"? 8 Proof section 9 Reasons for not promoting as a good article 10 Rational trigonometry 11 Merge 12 Origins/History 13 Organization 14 History

[edit] Mnemonics

I just did some addition to the mnemonics topic. I am just a student so please check up the language and grammar --Nikhil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.101.28.5 (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Initialization

I put this together kinda off the top of my head. I think it still needs some discussion of stuff like Law of Sines, Law of Cosines and identities, and maybe a little bit on radian measure, unit circle stuff, whatever. -- Blain

That's all covered in Trigonometric_function.

[edit] Definition of Sine and Cosine

I would like to propose the following change: Define sine and cosine via the unit circle. This is much better because it gives sine and cosine directly for all angles. Moreover, this is somehow the main points that sets trigonometry apart from Euclidean geometry: namely that trig functions have signs. They are not ratios of lengths of line segments. The unit circle definition comes much closer to the true nature of the trig functions. It is also much simpler. Any opinions on this? --345Kai 18:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The unit circle definition is much better. I don't agree that its simpler, however. I would have a right triangle section and then a unit circle section. I do think, though, that the unit circle definition needs to be included. --Mets501^talk 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have started writing an alternative version using the unit circle. I propose to first give the definition of the trig functions using the unit circle, and then derive/explain how the trig functions are useful in right triangles, and how it all relates to the theory of similar triangles. Let me know what you think. --345Kai 23:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Trigonometry

New Trig has been discovered. Check out his site for more info I think that this needs to be addressed.

Yeap, and check here [1]

It's not clear that rational trigonometry merits a comment on this highly selective page. What would seem suitable is a "see also" link with an even briefer description. A more serious problem is that the article on rational trigonometry is not helpful in its present form. But one may still link to it in the hope that its problems will be addressed. Abu Amaal 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

sir, your article is quite good.as you have made hyperlinks to articles related to the term,it explains everything.i have used it for my IGCSE math test,and it is quite good.thank you.

[edit] Lagadha & trigonometry

From the text:

Indian mathematicians were the pioneers of variable computations algebra for use in astronomical calculations along with trigonometry. Lagadha is the only known mathematician today to have used geometry and trigonometry for astronomy in his book Vedanga Jyotisha, much of whose works were destroyed by foreign invaders of India.

This passage caught my attention at first because of its lack of fluency (e.g., by "variable computations algebra" did the editor mean "variable computations otherwise known as algebra", or "variable computations and algebra"?), but as I pondered these words, I couldn't help but suspect the validity of the claim that Lagadha is "the only known mathematician today to have used geometry and trigonometry for astronomy". This is quite the sweeping statement -- did the editor mean to say that not even modern astronomers use trig? -- & the claim that much of his works were destroyed leads me to suspect that this claim cannot be substantiated. The article on Lagadha is a brief stub & offers no help to determine whether this statement is true or false.

Can someone provide citations for this statement (I suspect it may be true that Lagadha used some kind of mathematical process which is similar in some ways to trigonometry)? This statement is the sole contribution of an editor from an IP address, so I can't evaluate it on that grounds. If it cannot be verified, then it would be for it to be removed. -- llywrch 19:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Any particular rationale for the two links listed? They're not what I'd have chosen...

(but then, I can seldom make sense of which links Wikipedia ends up including)

--Oolong 13:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Written in "Wales"?

Please excuse my ignorance, but I noticed this entry in the page and was a little confused that it didn't somehow qualify the location of Wales. Welsh mathematics is something I know nothing about - perhaps it was a mis-spelling of another location:

"The earliest use of sine appears in the Sulba Sutras written in Wales between 800 BC and 500 BC, which correctly computes the sine of π/4 (45°) as 1/√2 in a procedure for circling the square (the opposite of squaring the circle)."

Could someone qualify which "Wales" or else clear this up?

Obvoiusly Wales is not correct, so looked for more details and found none. I changed it to India.

--MathMan64 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proof section

The proofs are not written correctly. You cannot prove that sin^2(A)+cos^2(A)=1 by starting with that equation. While the proofs have the right general idea, they need to be written in reverse, essentially. I am not familiar with the symbolic writing on here, so if someone could do that I would be very thankful. The proofs should be, generally, as follows (taking first Pythagorean identity as example): sin^2(A)+cos^2(A)=opp^2/hyp^2 + adj^2/hyp^2=1/hyp^2 x (opp^2 + adj^2)=1/hyp^2 x (hyp^2)=hyp^2/hyp^2=1. My apologies for the sloppy notation. Please consider this and then make the changes. Thanks. Makeemlighter 05:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for not promoting as a good article

This is a well-written article, but it does not include a single reference. As such it cannot become a good article. However the work required to make this article a good article is minimal. The article really only needs three references: one for the history section, one for the comment on rational trignometry and one for the basic trignometric claims.

A reference for the history can be found on Google [2], the rational trignometry can also be found on Google and the basic trignometric claims can be referenced using a good textbook on the subject.

Once this is done please feel free to resubmit the article for promotion.

Cedars 10:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rational trigonometry

Someone said this is "new" and ascribed it to an apparently living Australian mathematician. Of course that is utter nonsense, since rational trignometry was well known to the ancient Greeks! Not surprising since they tried hard to reduce everything to computations with rational numbers! See for example, stereographic projection and Euclid's rationally parametrized enumeration of Pythagorean triples. ---CH 22:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rational trigionometry refers to a specific attempt to make all trigonometry into rational numbers, not the idea that regular trigonometry (the one we use now) consists of rational numbers. —Mets501^talk 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Would it be appropriate to merge this article with the one on trigonometric functions? They'd both be a part of this page, headed "Trigonometry," as it's the broader of the two. The reason for this is I think that the "trigonometric function" article has been used to cover all of trigonometry, and thus what we have on this page ("Trigonometry") is redundant (and in fact, less detailed). Trigonometry is defined by its functions (sine, cosine, tangent, etc.), so I don't think they deserve their own article. In terms of the COTW, porting the information from the "trigonometric functions" article to here (+ incorporating the extra information that shows up on this article and not that one) would save a lot of work; that article takes a good approach to the whole of trigonometry, and would be appropriate under the heading "Trigonometry". James Somers 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, That's really difficult to decide whether Trigonometry function to merge into Trigonometry because if I Moved Trigonometry function into Trigonometry', that's too much for reading, editing the article. Basically, the size of article can be less 81 kilobytes long. So, Trigonometry function is just different kinds of equations by using Trigonometric functions, but Trigonometry is just explanation about history of Trigonometry. Anyways, That's good idea to port informations from the Trigonometric Functions to Trigonometry. *~Daniel~* ☎ 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins/History

Someone claims in the article that trigonometry has origins in Egypt etc... but they don't explain what they mean by that, and they don't cite any references. This part should either be removed as unsubstantiated or explained in what way the Egyptians contributed to Trigonometry.

[edit] Organization

What, exactly, is the purpose of the "About trigonometry" section? Melchoir 23:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've merged it into the overview section and added some images. Also made a number of other changes, based, in part, on comments from a previous editor on my talk page, q.v. --agr 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

Can someone include the works of Arab and Persian mathematicians Abu 'l Wafa and Ibn Yunus in more detail please, as their contributions are one of the most important in Trigonometry to date.

Can you supply some references or more info? I've added a disputed tag to the section.--agr 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Abu 'l Wafa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%27l_Wafa

Ibn Yunus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Yunus

I added them and took off the tag. Do you have further problems with the text?--agr 14:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The early history section has several problems.

• Irrelevant detail (e.g., the grade of a reservoir in Sri Lanka). I am rm these.
• "Time-speak" (omitting the word "the" in phrases like "The Indian mathematician Bhaskara").
• Lack of citation. There are many confident assertions that seem on their face to be uncertain.
• Lack of proportion. It seems there was a surge of additions about South Asian ancient trigonometry, but it is not matched by equivalent detail about other contributions such as those of pre-Classical and Classical mathematicians (e.g., Egypt, Babylon, Greece, Rome). Either there should be more detail systematically, or there should be less. I propose less, and that someone with expertise write a separate article on the (early) history. Meanwhile, I am shortening this section.
• Confused writing. E.g., what is meant by "variable computations algebra"?

I would appreciate it if someone with scholarly knowledge and a sense of proportion would fix these problems. If not, I may shorten this material. Zaslav 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)