Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davros)

    EDIT: beaten by Zacken while I was composing my essay
    I jumped the gun a little there.

    But yes, for the most part, however easy/'stupid' (note the use of inverted commas) a question comes up on TSR, it's encouraging to see the student asking about it instead of just suppressing any curiosity and just going with it like the vast majority of students do nowadays. I agree with you on that aspect.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davros)
    I don't want to drag the OP's thread off course with a minor dispute, but please note the word highlighted in bold above. The OP's clear intention was to refer to the specific problem which was actually attached in his second post!

    You correctly pointed out that textbooks often gloss over the fact that we can only write tan x = sin x / cos x when tan x is defined, but you weren't correcting any of the previous posters because they explained that we needed cos x not equal to zero for the division to be valid, and this condition is precisely the same as saying 'tan x is defined'

    Hopefully the OP has enough from all of us to have a better understanding of why the process was correct for the specific problem he attached. It's better to see students asking about this than blindly assuming we can divide by things all the time, which is the more common error!

    EDIT: beaten by Zacken while I was composing my essay
    I have no idea why you wish to dispute what I said nor why you seemingly want to quibble over the point.

    Suffice to say, the misconception was caused by a misunderstanding of the relationship between tan, sin and cos; a point that I clearly clarified. The fact that others suggestions work in this case is of little to no consequence .. bad maths is bad maths; if you are happy with this approach to maths then that really is of no concern to me.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    It's not. Note the use of the word here that the OP explicitly used to refer to the problem that she posted in the second post.
    as mentioned, the OP was seemingly happy with the accurate, all encompassing, explanation that I offered.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dpm)
    I have no idea why you wish to dispute what I said nor why you seemingly want to quibble over the point.

    Suffice to say, the misconception was caused by a misunderstanding of the relationship between tan, sin and cos; a point that I clearly clarified. The fact that others suggestions work in this case is of little to no consequence .. bad maths is bad maths; if you are happy with this approach to maths then that really is of no concern to me.
    The end is a little out of turn there, Davros is immensely helpful on this forum and rigorous, I've never seen him be "happy" with "bad maths", so I might want to revise that statement if I were you.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dpm)
    as mentioned, the OP was seemingly happy with the accurate, all encompassing, explanation that I offered.
    OP being happy does not imply that you answered the exact question he/she posted. That's the point that you brought up, however minor, and Davros and I disputed it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    The end is a little out of turn there, Davros is immensely helpful on this forum and rigorous, I've never seen him be "happy" with "bad maths", so I might want to revise that statement if I were you.
    I really fail to see how it is so difficult to comprehend that the crux of the problem is solely concerned with an inappropriate approach to the relationship between the 3 basic trigonometric functions. A suggestion of "well it works in this case" fails to amend the underlying issue. Bad maths is bad maths.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    OP being happy does not imply that you answered the exact question he/she posted. That's the point that you brought up, however minor, and Davros and I disputed it.
    I replied to the first post in the thread. The first post in the thread remains unchanged?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dpm)
    I replied to the first post in the thread. The first post in the thread remains unchanged?
    Okay. I honestly have no time for such petty arguments. So, truce, agree to disagree and we both walk away civilly?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Okay. I honestly have no time for such petty arguments. So, truce, agree to disagree and we both walk away civilly?
    With all due respect, I answered points made, it was you who seemed to feel the need to argue and demand that bizarrely, I retract what I posted.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by dpm)
    With all due respect, I answered points made, it was you who seemed to feel the need to argue and demand that bizarrely, I retract what I posted.
    OK, enough is enough here!

    You misunderstood what the OP posted, and insisted on dismissing the contribution of other posters, despite the fact that they addressed the OP's question perfectly accurately.

    There hasn't been any "bad maths" here as you put it, only your "bad grace" in failing to acknowledge that other people answered the OP perfectly well, and your contribution, accurate though it was, was in no way "better" than theirs.

    I haven't seen you post in this forum before, but please be careful in future when taking a 'superior' attitude towards other posters, especially experienced ones. We can all make mistakes, and all contributions are welcome here, but some of your posts have got dangerously close to rubbing people up the wrong way (easily done on the internet!).

    Have a good evening
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davros)
    OK, enough is enough here!
    followed by a rant ....

    I shall presume that the irony is not lost on you....
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: October 22, 2015
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.