Hi, I was deducing the formula for tan(3x) using de Moivre's theorem. So first I deduced the formulas for sin(3x) and cos(3x) by equating real and imaginary parts. Then they ask me to deduce that tan(3x) = [3tanx-tan^3x]/[1-3tan^2x]
Can this be done by simply manipulating (sin3x)/(cos3x), because I do not see how this could be done. I do not want it proven using the fact that tan3x=tan(2x+x) as this has nothing to do with complex numbers. Any ideas?
I did divide, but after that you end up with something nasty. Try it.
your method is fine, just when you divide you end up with some tans and some secs, you need to convert the secs to tans by using sec^2(x) = 1 + tan^2(x).
your method is fine, just when you divide you end up with some tans and some secs, you need to convert the secs to tans by using sec^2(x) = 1 + tan^2(x).
Yes, but I did that. The problem was solved in the beginning of the thread.
I'll just show what I mean as you still seem to think you get something messy (or am I missing something?) tan(3a)=cos(3a)sin(3a)=cos3(a)−3cos(a)sin2(a)3cos2(a)sin(a)−sin3(a) and multiplying bycos3(a)1cos3(a)1 Gives cos3(a)cos3(a)−cos3(a)3cos(a)sin2(a)cos3(a)3cos2(a)sin(a)−cos3(a)sin3(a). This gives (cancelling cos everywhere and then converting the remaining to tan(a)) : 1−3tan2(a)3tan(a)−tan3(a)
NB your method is obviously more simple, but as I have been stressing it is imperative that you use the form (3sinx-4sin^3x)/(4cos^3x-3cosx) because the question says "hence"
I'll just show what I mean as you still seem to think you get something messy (or am I missing something?) As far as I can see, you are 100% correct.
As far as arguing about "hence", since the required identity comes out in a single line (with the explanation "divide top and bottom by cos^3 x), my feeling is you don't get much more "hence" than that!
NB your method is obviously more simple, but as I have been stressing it is imperative that you use the form (3sinx-4sin^3x)/(4cos^3x-3cosx) because the question says "hence"
Okay, well it is me interpreting that 'hence' a bit differently... I reasoned like "if a=b=c and d=e=f and hence prove c/f=yadda then that implies I can use b/e=yadda", which I don't know how valid it is. Anyway, we both got there, and I know how you did it, I've just been trying to figure out what was wrong with my way (i.e. the 'hence' which I think I am using in an okay way, though I may be wrong there...)
edit: just saw your reply David, and I'm a bit relieved you agree with me...