MHB Confused about a couple of trig. identities.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the trigonometric identity Ccos(ω₀t - φ) = Asin(ω₀t) + Bcos(ω₀t), which the original poster finds challenging. They reference the cosine addition formula as a potential tool but struggle to see how to apply it effectively. A participant suggests that the constants A and B can be defined as A = Csin(φ) and B = Ccos(φ), indicating that the goal is to demonstrate the existence of such constants rather than to evaluate them. The conversation also touches on the Auxiliary Angle formula, hinting at alternative methods for solving the problem. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of applying trigonometric identities in proofs.
skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I've got this problem right now, which asks me to prove that
$$Ccos(\omega_{o}t-\phi)=Asin(\omega_{o}t)+Bcos(\omega_{o}t)$$
This proved to be a bit more difficult than I expected, so I looked up a complete list of trig identities.
$$cos(a\pm{b})=cos(a)cos(b)\mp{sin(a)sin(b)}$$
seems like the only one that could be helpful in my situation, however when I try to think of a way where the original equation makes sense, I am really not able to convince myself.
Wouldn't the only way for the original equation to make sense be if
\(sin(\phi)=cos(\phi)=1\)? As far as I know this is only possible for \(\frac{-3\pi}{4}\).
Kind of stuck here, any help would be very appreciated
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Re: confused about a couple trig identities.

skatenerd said:
I've got this problem right now, which asks me to prove that
$$Ccos(\omega_{o}t-\phi)=Asin(\omega_{o}t)+Bcos(\omega_{o}t)$$
This proved to be a bit more difficult than I expected, so I looked up a complete list of trig identities.
$$cos(a\pm{b})=cos(a)cos(b)\mp{sin(a)sin(b)}$$
seems like the only one that could be helpful in my situation, however when I try to think of a way where the original equation makes sense, I am really not able to convince myself.
Wouldn't the only way for the original equation to make sense be if
\(sin(\phi)=cos(\phi)=1\)? As far as I know this is only possible for \(\frac{-3\pi}{4}\).
Kind of stuck here, any help would be very appreciated

I am 90% positive I have shown this in my classical mechanics notes in the forum's notes section. They aren't completed so it should be easy to find.
 
Re: confused about a couple trig identities.

skatenerd said:
I've got this problem right now, which asks me to prove that
$$Ccos(\omega_{o}t-\phi)=Asin(\omega_{o}t)+Bcos(\omega_{o}t)$$
This proved to be a bit more difficult than I expected, so I looked up a complete list of trig identities.
$$cos(a\pm{b})=cos(a)cos(b)\mp{sin(a)sin(b)}$$
seems like the only one that could be helpful in my situation, however when I try to think of a way where the original equation makes sense, I am really not able to convince myself.
Wouldn't the only way for the original equation to make sense be if
\(sin(\phi)=cos(\phi)=1\)? As far as I know this is only possible for \(\frac{-3\pi}{4}\).
Kind of stuck here, any help would be very appreciated

I agree with what you are thinking. Using the identity you have been given

\displaystyle \begin{align*} C\cos{ \left( \omega_ot - \phi \right)} &= C \left[ \cos{ \left( \omega_ot \right)}\cos{ \left( \phi \right) } + \sin{\left( \omega_ot \right) } \sin{\left( \phi \right) } \right] \\ &= C\sin{\left( \phi \right) } \sin{\left( \omega_ot \right) } + C\cos{\left( \phi \right)} \cos{\left( \omega_ot \right) } \\ &= A\sin{\left( \omega_ot \right) } + B \sin{ \left( \omega_ot \right) } \end{align*}

where \displaystyle \begin{align*} A = C\sin{(\phi)} \end{align*} and \displaystyle \begin{align*} B = C\cos{(\phi)} \end{align*}. Here you're not expected to be able to evaluate these constants, you're just expected to show that there ARE some constants that exist which would satisfy your identity.
 
Re: confused about a couple trig identities.

$\LaTeX$ tip:

Precede trigonometric/logarithmic functions with a backslash so that their names are not italicized as if they are strings of variables. For example:

sin(\theta) produces $sin(\theta)$

\sin(\theta) produces $\sin(\theta)$
 
Re: Confused about a couple trig identities.

Hi Skatenerd! :D

Have you come across the Auxiliary Angle formulae - from trigonometry - before...?

$$A\cos x+ B\sin x=\sqrt{A^2+B^2}\cos(x\pm\varphi)\quad ; \, \varphi=\tan^{-1}\left(\mp \frac{B}{A}\right) $$$$A\cos x+ B\sin x=\sqrt{A^2+B^2}\sin(x\pm\varphi)\quad ; \, \varphi=\tan^{-1}\left(\pm \frac{A}{B}\right) $$

Incidentally, I just posted a thread in the Puzzles Board that might be of interest...

http://mathhelpboards.com/challenge-questions-puzzles-28/auxiliary-angle-proof-6759-new.html
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top