Results 1 to 10 of 10

Math Help - Trig Proof

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    158

    Trig Proof

    prove the identity

    sin\;\theta\;tan\;\theta + cos\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    My work:

    sin\;\theta\left(\frac{sin\;\theta}{cos\;\theta}\r  ight) + cos\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    \frac{sin^2\;\theta}{cos\;\theta} + cos\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    sin^2\;\theta + cos^2\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    (1 - cos^2\;\theta) + cos^2\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    1 = sec\;\theta

    Where did I go wrong?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Senior Member Peritus's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by OzzMan View Post
    prove the identity

    sin\;\theta\;tan\;\theta + cos\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    My work:

    sin\;\theta\left(\frac{sin\;\theta}{cos\;\theta}\r  ight) + cos\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    \frac{sin^2\;\theta}{cos\;\theta} + cos\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    sin^2\;\theta + cos^2\;\theta = sec\;\theta <- you forgot to multiply the sec by cos

    (1 - cos^2\;\theta) + cos^2\;\theta = sec\;\theta

    1 = sec\;\theta

    Where did I go wrong?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    158
    When proving trig identities you don't let the sides interfere with each other.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member topher0805's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    From
    Vancouver
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by OzzMan View Post
    When proving trig identities you don't let the sides interfere with each other.
    Remember the Golden Rule of Algebra:

    Do unto one side as you do unto the other.

    This applies even when proving identities. All of your previous steps did not change the value of the left side. When you multiplied it by cos, you did change the value and so you have to do the same to the left.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    158
    I don' think thats right. I've been proving identities like this before and its worked out fine. I'm 100% sure that you do not cross multiply when proving identities. I've been told this on this forum.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Senior Member topher0805's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    From
    Vancouver
    Posts
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by OzzMan View Post
    I don' think thats right. I've been proving identities like this before and its worked out fine. I'm 100% sure that you do not cross multiply when proving identities. I've been told this on this forum.
    You are correct in a sense. It is a convention in mathematics that when you are proving an identity, you generally rearrange one side while ignoring the other.

    Notice the word rearrange! Multiplying one side by cosine is not rearranging! You altered that side of the equation, and therefore you should have done the same to the other side.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    158
    If either of you have a method on how to prove this. Can you share it please. Because at the moment I'm stuck.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    18,669
    Thanks
    1618
    Awards
    1
    \begin{array}{l}<br />
 \sin (\theta )\tan (\theta ) + \cos (\theta ) \\ <br />
 \sin (\theta )\left( {\frac{{\sin (\theta )}}{{\cos (\theta )}}} \right) + \cos (\theta ) \\ <br />
 \frac{{\sin ^2 (\theta ) + \cos ^2 (\theta )}}{{\cos (\theta )}} \\ <br />
 \frac{1}{{\cos (\theta )}} \\ \sec(\theta ) \\<br />
 \end{array}<br />
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Member
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    148
    This is a classic example of "assuming what you are trying to prove."

    In algabraic proofs, especially when you are first being introduced to proofs, it is tempting to write down an equation then manipulate it until you get something that is "obviously" true. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not a proof, since what you assume (namely that the equality is true) may not be!

    Here is a simple but enlightening example:

    I claim I will prove -1=1.
    Proof:
    -1 = 1
    (-1)^2 = (1)^2
    1=1 QED!

    Now did I just rock the very foundation of mathematics by proving -1 = 1? Why not? If I have an equality I am allowed to square it as long as I do it to both sides, right?

    The problem is that I started by assuming what I was trying to prove. I wanted to prove -1 = 1 and what I did was I wrote that down and did some math to both sides of the equation and ended up with an equality I know to be true. So I really didn't prove anything.

    Start with one side of the equation (usually the more complicated side) and through the use of proven identities and simplification rearrange it into the other side. This constitutes a valid proof.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member Peritus's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by iknowone View Post
    This is a classic example of "assuming what you are trying to prove."

    In algabraic proofs, especially when you are first being introduced to proofs, it is tempting to write down an equation then manipulate it until you get something that is "obviously" true. It cannot be stressed enough that this is not a proof, since what you assume (namely that the equality is true) may not be!

    Here is a simple but enlightening example:

    I claim I will prove -1=1.
    Proof:
    -1 = 1
    (-1)^2 = (1)^2
    1=1 QED!

    Now did I just rock the very foundation of mathematics by proving -1 = 1? Why not? If I have an equality I am allowed to square it as long as I do it to both sides, right?

    The problem is that I started by assuming what I was trying to prove. I wanted to prove -1 = 1 and what I did was I wrote that down and did some math to both sides of the equation and ended up with an equality I know to be true. So I really didn't prove anything.

    Start with one side of the equation (usually the more complicated side) and through the use of proven identities and simplification rearrange it into the other side. This constitutes a valid proof.
    Furthermore that's exactly what happens when people bluntly follow various statements such as:
    When proving trig identities you don't let the sides interfere with each other.
    When trying to prove an identity, think about what you're looking at: " an equality", which means that if you multiply one side of the equality by some expression, it will no longer be equal to the other side of the equality (that is of course if this expression does not evaluate to one). If you've decided to multiply one of the sides by some expression, you should also remember to divide this side by the same expression so as not to alter the equality you're trying to prove.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. [SOLVED] Trig Proof
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 28th 2010, 03:38 PM
  2. trig proof
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 16th 2010, 05:55 AM
  3. Trig Lab Proof
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 10th 2010, 11:11 AM
  4. Trig proof - urg
    Posted in the Trigonometry Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 13th 2009, 06:57 AM
  5. Help with a Trig Proof
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 11th 2008, 11:16 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum