# When was the derivative of sin(X) first determined ?

Watch
Announcements
#1
I want to know in the timeline of mathematics , considering what was considered as far as had been discovered at that time , where I place ?

For example, if you can calculate a derivative from first principles you are at the same point Newton was when he discovered calculus.

Am I still at that point in time ? I assume so. So I have the same knowledge that the best mathematicians of the 17th century had !
0
3 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by seals2001)
I want to know in the timeline of mathematics , considering what was considered as far as had been discovered at that time , where I place ?

For example, if you can calculate a derivative from first principles youu are at the same point Newton was when he discovered calculus.

Am I still at that point in time ? I assume so. So I have the same knowledge that the best mathematicians of the 17th century had !
Errr can you differentiate sin() from first principles?
Have a read of a good maths history book, Newton did a fair bit more than that and others had been kicking around ideas about calculus for 50-100 years before, but he unified the approach and applied it to understand gravity/elliptical motion, amongst other things.
Last edited by mqb2766; 3 weeks ago
0
3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by mqb2766)
Errr can you differentiate sin() from first principles?
Sure you can, using identity for :

Then, let so and and so:

0
3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by mqb2766)
Errr can you differentiate sin() from first principles?
(Original post by lordaxil)
Sure you can, using identity for :

Then, let so and and so:

It appears the answer is no.
0
3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by DFranklin)
It appears the answer is no.
Care to elaborate?
0
3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by lordaxil)
Care to elaborate?
isn't a meaningfull statement when talking about limits. You can't pick and choose which bits of the limit you move outside. If I give you the benefit of the doubt about , it's still a result claimed without proof. Same for . In addition, isn't enough to deduce the result you want.

Edit: FWIW, it's a little less obvious but if you use the trig sum<->product formulas you can show , which reduces the "limit type" results you need to just .
Last edited by DFranklin; 3 weeks ago
0
3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by lordaxil)
Care to elaborate?
I also just realised you're not the OP. mqb2766's question was to point out that if the OP wants to compare themselves to Newton, there's a definite destinction between knowing the derivative of sin(x) and knowing how to *prove* that's the derivative. So the word "you" in that question was important.
0
3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by DFranklin)
isn't a meaningfull statement when talking about limits. You can't pick and choose which bits of the limit you move outside. If I give you the benefit of the doubt about , it's still a result claimed without proof. Same for . In addition, isn't enough to deduce the result you want.
Clearly, those limiting behaviours only apply as . A proof for either result can be obtained without resort to calculus.

(Original post by DFranklin)
Edit: FWIW, it's a little less obvious but if you use the trig sum<->product formulas you can show , which reduces the "limit type" results you need to just .
More elegant, no doubt, but the gain in rigour comes at loss of clarity.
0
#9
(Original post by DFranklin)
isn't a meaningfull statement when talking about limits. You can't pick and choose which bits of the limit you move outside. If I give you the benefit of the doubt about , it's still a result claimed without proof. Same for . In addition, isn't enough to deduce the result you want.

Edit: FWIW, it's a little less obvious but if you use the trig sum<->product formulas you can show , which reduces the "limit type" results you need to just .
Can you elaborate why that isn't a proof ?

Thanks.
0
3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by lordaxil)
Clearly, those limiting behaviours only apply as . A proof for either result can be obtained without resort to calculus.
I'm not nitpicking about whether you explicitly say "as "; it's clear enough from context. But my question is: what is even supposed to mean? If you mean , you should say so (and if you don't then I really don't know what you mean).

More fundamentally, you can't (always) look at a limiting expression and say "I'll take the limits for those bits out of the limit, but I'll leave some other bits in".

In your limit you've claimed that by observing that .

This is not a valid arguement. If we rearrange slightly as: we see that you are dividing by .

So the mere knowledge that is insufficient; you need instead , which is a much stronger statement..

More elegant, no doubt, but the gain in rigour comes at loss of clarity.
Not much point in a "proof" that's clear but wrong. Rearranging to avoid the need of results on how quickly is worth it, IMNSHO.
Last edited by DFranklin; 3 weeks ago
1
3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by DFranklin)
I'm not nitpicking about whether you explicitly say "as "; it's clear enough from context. But my question is: what is even supposed to mean? If you mean , you should say so (and if you don't then I really don't know what you mean).
Yes, that's what I mean. As you say, it couldn't really mean anything else.

(Original post by DFranklin)
More fundamentally, you can't (always) look at a limiting expression and say "I'll take the limits for those bits out of the limit, but I'll leave some other bits in".
Fair point. In this case, it is OK to do though.

(Original post by DFranklin)
Not much point in a "proof" that's clear but wrong. Rearranging to avoid the need of results on how quickly is worth it, IMNSHO.
I wasn't aiming for full mathematical rigour - just to show that sin(x) can be differentiated from first principles, which you have agreed with me is possible.
0
3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by lordaxil)
Yes, that's what I mean. As you say, it couldn't really mean anything else.

Fair point. In this case, it is OK to do though.
No, it isn't.

I wasn't aiming for full mathematical rigour - just to show that sin(x) can be differentiated from first principles, which you have agreed with me is possible.
Yes it can be done. But you didn't do so.
Last edited by DFranklin; 3 weeks ago
0
3 weeks ago
#13
Yes, you are right. What I wrote originally was wrong and I see that now. Correction repped.
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (581)
34.2%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (698)
41.08%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (342)
20.13%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (78)
4.59%