Quite a few of you had difficulties with problem 18 of the Additional and Advanced Exercises for Chapter 10, so I am posting a solution here.

The problem asks to derive the trigonometric identity by forming the cross product of two appropriate vectors.

In problems that involve trigonometry or geometry, it is convenient to begin with vectors that have some clear geometric meaning related to the problem at hand, so it seems natural to consider the vectors and .

These are two vectors in the plane, but we look at them as vectors in 3-D, as we should, since we want to look at their cross product, and this is only defined for vectors in 3-D.

So: is a vector of size 1 () that forms an angle of radians with the -axis (measured counterclockwise). Similarly, is a vector of size 1 that forms an angle of radians with the -axis (measured counterclockwise).

Now: We need to analyze the angle between and , which seems to be the technical point of this exercise, so let’s do this very carefully. This angle is the angle measured starting at and moving counterclockwise until we find , is usually , but it may be if, for example, and are vectors in the first quadrant and . (Although we can “ignore'' this case since the sine function is periodic with period .)

Similarly: The direction of is obtained by the Right-Hand Rule, meaning is a vector perpendicular to the plane spanned by and (the -plane), but it may be a positive (or zero) multiple of , or a negative multiple of , depending on whether the angle between and is smaller than (or equal to) , or larger than .

The magnitude of is , where is either the angle between and , or , whichever is between and

Putting these two bits of information (about direction and magnitude) together, we find that if . If , then but for any , so also in this case .

Finally, , component-wise, is found by computing the formal determinant . Comparing this expression with the one above, we find the desired identity.

(Actually, we find it with the roles of and reversed, but this is of course irrelevant. And of course this deduction only works for angles between and , but the identity is true in all other cases as well, thanks to the periodicity properties of sine and cosine.)

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 21st, 2008 at 11:48 pm and is filed under 275: Calculus III. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

A database of number fields, by Jürgen Klüners and Gunter Malle. (Note this is not the same as the one mentioned in this answer.) The site also provides links to similar databases.

As the other answer indicates, the yes answer to your question is known as the De Bruijn-Erdős theorem. This holds regardless of the size of the graph. The De Bruijn–Erdős theorem is a particular instance of what in combinatorics we call a compactness argument or Rado's selection principle, and its truth can be seen as a consequence of the topological c […]

Every $P_c$ has the size of the reals. For instance, suppose $\sum_n a_n=c$ and start by writing $\mathbb N=A\cup B$ where $\sum_{n\in A}a_n$ converges absolutely (to $a$, say). This is possible because $a_n\to 0$: Let $m_0

Consider a subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb R$ of size $\aleph_1$ and ordered in type $\omega_1$. (This uses the axiom of choice.) Let $\mathcal F$ be the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the initial segments of $\Omega$ under the well-ordering (so all sets in $\mathcal F$ are countable or co-countable), with the measure that assigns $0$ to the countable sets and $1 […]

You assume $\omega_\alpha\subseteq M$ and $X\in M$ so that $X$ belongs to the transitive collapse of $M$ (because if $\pi$ is the collapsing map, $\pi(X)=\pi[X]=X$. You assume $|M|=\aleph_\alpha$ so that the transitive collapse of $M$ has size $\aleph_\alpha$. Since you also have that this transitive collapse is of the form $L_\beta$ for some $\beta$, it fol […]

No, this is not possible. Dave L. Renfro wrote an excellent historical Essay on nowhere analytic $C^\infty$ functions in two parts (with numerous references). See here: 1 (dated May 9, 2002 6:18 PM), and 2 (dated May 19, 2002 8:29 PM). As indicated in part 1, in Zygmunt Zahorski. Sur l'ensemble des points singuliers d'une fonction d'une variab […]

I don't think you need too much in terms of prerequisites. An excellent reference is MR3616119. Tomkowicz, Grzegorz(PL-CEG2); Wagon, Stan(1-MACA-NDM). The Banach-Tarski paradox. Second edition. With a foreword by Jan Mycielski. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 163. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2016. xviii+348 pp. ISBN: 978-1-10 […]

For the second problem, write $x=-3+x'$ and so on. You have $x'+y'+z'=17$ and $x',\dots$ are nonnegative, a case you know how to solve. You can also solve the first problem this way; now you would set $x=1+x'$, etc.