Talk:Law of sines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Axel, I want to write about triangualation, but I'm afraid I'll get the math wrong. In fact, I'm afraid anything I do relating to Wikipedia will go wrong under your scrutiny. Should I be bold or just wait for you to write it? --Ed Poor
Go right ahead, but you may want to spell it right :-) AxelBoldt 19:39 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)
The derivation proof is really incomplete because it doesn't cover what happens if angle A or B is obtuse (over 90 degrees). In that case, no perpendicular line can be drawn from line AB to point C, without extending line AB beyond A or beyond B. I'd fix it myself but I don't have experience making computer images. Art LaPella 16:23, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
- I got a picture up, I hope the diagram is correct/enough. I can't remember the proof now, so if anyone wants to do it first they can... I'll probably do it in a while if I recall. Fiveless
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sinelaw_obtuse.png
Contents |
[edit] Needs Some Work
One of the main reasons that I use wikipedia for information on formulas over math world is because I do not normally get bombarded by theory and the inner workings of these formulas but more how to use them and what they can do for me. I think that it would be much better if some examples were given, like how to use it for working out a side or an angle if you have the other bits of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.106.157 (talk)
- I agree. The Triangle solution(s) and Triangle equality(-ies) pages need to be made. 75.35.201.48 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] chocolateluvr88
I made radians a link, so they can easily view what a radian is if they don't know already. That is trivial to solve these problems. Also, I will try adding some examples.
--chocolateluvr88 11:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- but the law of sines is true regardless of the units used, no? Matt 12:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- oh, except for the 2R part, which I didn't see before, never mind. Matt 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- No proof is given for the =2R part, and the example at the bottom uses degrees for the example. Although I don't doubt that the =2R part is true, are you sure that it's part of the law of sines? my calculus text doesn't mention it. Matt 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Proof is now given for the =2R part. Suck on that. (my friend did it) 195.168.237.121 17:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- No proof is given for the =2R part, and the example at the bottom uses degrees for the example. Although I don't doubt that the =2R part is true, are you sure that it's part of the law of sines? my calculus text doesn't mention it. Matt 13:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- oh, except for the 2R part, which I didn't see before, never mind. Matt 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are 19 possible combinations of sides and anles. I would love to see the equations for each that work for acute and obtuse triangles.
[edit] Radius vs Diameter
Why not change 2R to just D? Seems like it would be more in character for wikipedia. If the 2R term is convenient for the proof of the law of sines, or some other reason then it doesn't really matter. Please let me know though. Thanks
Guardian of Light 16:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please see proof. D would probably make it more unclear. I have never seen it replaced with D. The reason is probably the fakt that D is not as important in triangles as the radius of the inscribed triangle.. 195.168.243.36 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] cool
oh wow , i didnt know that a/sina = b/sinb = c/sinc is ALSO equal 2r . Thats really useful. Thanks.
[edit] Erm...
I am a 6th grader and for some strange reason need to know this... *psst* I think my teachers are dillsuional *cough* so I woul really love it if you could put this formula in a more 6th grader like way... Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.184.134 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
