Election Day

I need to remember to do this in 2016.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/MichaelBerryFanPage/photos/a.363467236699.163471.115017781699/10152462854486700/?type=1&theater

Inverse Functions: Logarithms and Complex Numbers (Part 30)

Ordinarily, there are no great difficulties with logarithms as we’ve seen with the inverse trigonometric functions. That’s because the graph of $y = a^x$ satisfies the horizontal line test for any $0 < a < 1$ or $a > 1$ . For example,

$e^x = 5 \Longrightarrow x = \ln 5$ ,

and we don’t have to worry about “other” solutions.

However, this goes out the window if we consider logarithms with complex numbers. Recall that the trigonometric form of a complex number $z = a+bi$ is

$z = r(\cos \theta + i \sin \theta) = r e^{i \theta}$

where $r = |z| = \sqrt{a^2 + b^2}$ and $\tan \theta = b/a$ , with $\theta$ in the appropriate quadrant. This is analogous to converting from rectangular coordinates to polar coordinates.

Over the past few posts, we developed the following theorem for computing $e^z$ in the case that $z$ is a complex number.

Definition. Let $z = r e^{i \theta}$ be a complex number so that $-\pi < \theta \le \theta$ . Then we define

$\log z = \ln r + i \theta$ .

Of course, this looks like what the definition ought to be if one formally applies the Laws of Logarithms to $r e^{i \theta}$ . However, this complex logarithm doesn’t always work the way you’d think it work. For example,

$\log \left(e^{2 \pi i} \right) = \log (\cos 2\pi + i \sin 2\pi) = \log 1 = \ln 1 = 0 \ne 2\pi i$ .

This is analogous to another situation when an inverse function is defined using a restricted domain, like

$\sqrt{ (-3)^2 } = \sqrt{9} = 3 \ne -3$

$\sin^{-1} (\sin \pi) = \sin^{-1} 0 = 0 \ne \pi$ .

The Laws of Logarithms also may not work when nonpositive numbers are used. For example,

$\log \left[ (-1) \cdot (-1) \right] = \log 1 = 0$ ,

but

$\log(-1) + \log(-1) = \log \left( e^{\pi i} \right) + \log \left( e^{\pi i} \right) = \pi i + \pi i = 2\pi i$ .

green line

This material appeared in my previous series concerning calculators and complex numbers: https://meangreenmath.com/2014/07/09/calculators-and-complex-numbers-part-21/

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 29)

We now turn to a little-taught and perhaps controversial inverse function: arcsecant. As we’ve seen throughout this series, the domain of this inverse function must be chosen so that the graph of $y = \sec x$ satisfies the horizontal line test. It turns out that the choice of domain has surprising consequences that are almost unforeseeable using only the tools of Precalculus.

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ — or, more precisely, $[0,\pi/2) \cup (\pi/2, \pi]$ to avoid the vertical asymptote at $x = \pi/2$ — in order to approximately match the range of $\cos^{-1} x$ . However, when I was a student, I distinctly remember that my textbook chose $[0,\pi/2) \cup [\pi,3\pi/2)$ as the range for $\sec^{-1} x$ .

I believe that this definition has fallen out of favor today. However, for the purpose of today’s post, let’s just run with this definition and see what happens. This portion of the graph of $y = \sec x$ is perhaps unorthodox, but it satisfies the horizontal line test so that the inverse function can be defined.

Let’s fast-forward a couple of semesters and use implicit differentiation (see also https://meangreenmath.com/2014/08/08/different-definitions-of-logarithm-part-8/ for how this same logic is used for other inverse functions) to find the derivative of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ :

$x = \sec y$

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (x) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (\sec y)$

$1 = \sec y \tan y \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sec y \tan y} = \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

At this point, the object is to convert the left-hand side to something involving only $x$ . Clearly, we can replace $\sec y$ with $x$ . As it turns out, the replacement of $\tan y$ is a lot simpler than we saw in yesterday’s post. Once again, we begin with one of the Pythagorean identities:

$1 + \tan^2 y = \sec^2 y$

$\tan^2 y = \sec^2 y - 1$

$\tan^2 y = x^2 - 1$

$\tan y = \sqrt{x^2 - 1} \qquad \hbox{or} \tan y = -\sqrt{x^2 - 1}$

So which is it, the positive answer or the negative answer? In yesterday’s post, the answer depended on whether $x$ was positive or negative. However, with the current definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ , we know for certain that the answer is the positive one! How can we be certain? The angle $y$ must lie in either the interval $[0,\pi/2)$ or else the interval $[\pi,3\pi/2)$ . In either interval, $\tan y$ is positive. So, using this definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ , we can simply say that

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} \sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle \frac{1}{x \sqrt{x^2-1}}$ ,

and we don’t have to worry about $|x|$ that appeared in yesterday’s post.

Turning to integration, we now have the simple formula

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} x + C$

that works whether $x$ is positive or negative. For example, the orange area can now be calculated correctly:

$\displaystyle \int_{-2}^{-2\sqrt{3}/3} \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} \left( - \displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3} \right) - \sec^{-1} (-2)$

$= \displaystyle \frac{7\pi}{6} - \frac{4\pi}{3}$

$= \displaystyle -\frac{\pi}{6}$

So, unlike yesterday’s post, this definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ produces a simple integration formula.

So why isn’t this the standard definition for $\sec^{-1} x$ ? I’m afraid the answer is simple: with this definition, the equation

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

is no longer correct if $x < -1$ . Indeed, I distinctly remember thinking, back when I was a student taking trigonometry, that the definition of $\sec^{-1} x$ seemed really odd, and it seemed to me that it would be better if it matched that of $\cos^{-1} x$ . Of course, at that time in my mathematical development, it would have been almost hopeless to explain that the range $[0,\pi/2) \cup [\pi,3\pi/2)$ had been chosen to simplify certain integrals from calculus.

So I suppose that The Powers That Be have decided that it’s more important for this identity to hold than to have a simple integration formula for $\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}$

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 28)

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ , so that

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

Why would this be controversial? Yesterday, we saw that $\tan x$ is both positive and negative on the interval $[0,\pi]$ , and so great care has to be used to calculate the integral:

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}$

Here’s another example: let’s use trigonometric substitution to calculate

$\displaystyle \int_{-6}^{-3} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2-9} }{x} dx$

The standard trick is to use the substitution $x = 3 \sec \theta$ . With this substitution:

$x^2 - 9 = 9 \sec^2 \theta - 9 = 9 \tan^2 \theta$ , and
$dx = 3 \sec \theta \tan \theta \, d\theta$
$x = -3 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sec \theta = -1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \theta = \sec^{-1} (-1) = \pi$
$x = -6 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \sec \theta = -2 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \theta = \sec^{-1} (-2) = \displaystyle \frac{2\pi}{3}$

Therefore,

$\displaystyle \int_{-6}^{-3} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2-9} }{x} dx = \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} \frac{ \sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}} { 3 \sec \theta} 3 \sec \theta \tan \theta \, d\theta$

At this point, the common mistake would be to replace $\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}$ with $3 \tan \theta$ . This is a mistake because

$\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta} = |3 \tan \theta|$

Furthermore, for this particular problem, $\tan \theta$ is negative on the interval $[2\pi/3,\pi]$ . Therefore, for this problem, we should replace $\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}$ with $-3 \tan \theta$ .

Continuing the calculation,

$\displaystyle \int_{-6}^{-3} \frac{ \sqrt{x^2-9} }{x} dx = \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} \frac{ -3 \tan \theta} { 3 \sec \theta} 3 \sec \theta \tan \theta$

$= \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} -3\tan^2 \theta \, d\theta$

$= \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} -3(\sec^2 \theta-1) \, d\theta$

$= \displaystyle \int_{2\pi/3}^{\pi} (3-3 \sec^2 \theta) \, d\theta$

$= \displaystyle \bigg[ 3 \theta - 3 \tan \theta \bigg]_{2\pi/3}^{\pi}$

$= \displaystyle \left[ 3 \pi - 3 \tan \pi \right] - \left[ 3 \left( \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) - 3 \tan \left( \frac{2\pi}{3} \right) \right]$

$= \displaystyle 3\pi - 0 - 2\pi + 3(-\sqrt{3})$

$= \pi - 3\sqrt{3}$

So if great care wasn’t used to correctly simplify $\sqrt{9 \tan^2 \theta}$ , one would instead obtain the incorrect answer $3\sqrt{3} - \pi$ .

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 27)

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ , so that

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

Why would this be controversial? Let’s fast-forward a couple of semesters and use implicit differentiation (see also https://meangreenmath.com/2014/08/08/different-definitions-of-logarithm-part-8/ for how this same logic is used for other inverse functions) to find the derivative of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ :

$x = \sec y$

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (x) = \displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} (\sec y)$

$1 = \sec y \tan y \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sec y \tan y} = \displaystyle \frac{dy}{dx}$

At this point, the object is to convert the left-hand side to something involving only $x$ . Clearly, we can replace $\sec y$ with $x$ . However, doing the same with $\tan y$ is trickier. We begin with one of the Pythagorean identities:

$1 + \tan^2 y = \sec^2 y$

$\tan^2 y = \sec^2 y - 1$

$\tan^2 y = x^2 - 1$

$\tan y = \sqrt{x^2 - 1} \qquad \hbox{or} \tan y = -\sqrt{x^2 - 1}$

So which is it, the positive answer or the negative answer? The answer is, without additional information, we don’t know!

If $0 \le y < \pi/2$ (so that $x = \sec y \ge 1$ ), then $\tan y$ is positive, and so $\tan y = \sqrt{\sec^2 y - 1}$ .
If $\pi/2 < y \le \pi$ (so that $x = \sec y \le 1$ ), then $\tan y$ is negative, and so $\tan y = -\sqrt{\sec^2 y - 1}$ .

We therefore have two formulas for the derivative of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ :

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle \frac{1}{x \sqrt{x^2-1}} \qquad \hbox{if} \qquad x > 1$

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle -\frac{1}{x \sqrt{x^2-1}} \qquad \hbox{if} \qquad x < 1$

These may then be combined into the single formula

$\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx} sec^{-1} x = \displaystyle \frac{1}{|x| \sqrt{x^2-1}}$

It gets better. Let’s now find the integral

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}$

Several calculus textbooks that I’ve seen will lazily give the answer

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} x + C$

This answer works as long as $x > 1$ , so that $|x|$ reduces to simply $x$ . For example, the red signed area in the above picture on the interval $[2\sqrt{3}/3,2]$ may be correctly computed as

$\displaystyle \int_{2\sqrt{3}/3}^2 \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} 2 - \sec^{-1} \displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3}$

$= \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \right) - \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \right)$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{3} - \frac{\pi}{6}$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{6}$

However, the orange signed area on the interval $[-2,-2\sqrt{3}/3]$ is incorrectly computed using this formula!

$\displaystyle \int_{-2}^{-2\sqrt{3}/3} \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}} = \sec^{-1} \left( - \displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}}{3} \right) - \sec^{-1} (-2)$

$= \cos^{-1} \left( -\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \right) -\cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \right)$

$= \displaystyle \frac{5\pi}{6} - \frac{2\pi}{3}$

$= \displaystyle \frac{\pi}{6}$

This is patently false, as the picture clearly indicates that the above integral has to be negative. For this reason, careful calculus textbooks will often ask students to solve a problem like

$\displaystyle \int \frac{dx}{x \sqrt{x^2 -1}}, \qquad x > 1$

and the caveat $x > 1$ is needed to ensure that the correct antiderivative is used. Indeed, a calculus textbook that doesn’t include such caveats are worthy of any scorn that an instructor cares to heap upon it.

Inverse Functions: Arcsecant (Part 26)

The standard definition of $y = \sec^{-1} x$ uses the interval $[0,\pi]$ — or, more precisely, $[0,\pi/2) \cup (\pi/2, \pi]$ to avoid the vertical asymptote at $x = \pi/2$ . This portion of the graph of $y = \sec x$ satisfies the horizontal line test and, conveniently, matches almost perfectly the domain of $y = \cos^{-1} x$ . This is perhaps not surprising since, when both are defined, $\cos x$ and $\sec x$ are reciprocals.

Since this range of $\sec^{-1} x$ matches that of $\cos^{-1} x$ , we have the convenient identity

$\sec^{-1} x = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$

To see why this works, let’s examine the right triangle below. Notice that

$\cos \theta = \displaystyle \frac{x}{1} \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \theta = \cos^{-1} x$ .

Also,

$\sec\theta = \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \qquad \Longrightarrow \qquad \theta = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{1}{x} \right)$ .

This argument provides the justification for $0 < \theta < \pi/2$ — that is, for $x > 1$ — but it still works for $x = 1$ and $x \le -1$ .

So this seems like the most natural definition in the world for $\sec^{-1} x$ . Unfortunately, there are consequences for this choice in calculus, as we’ll see in tomorrow’s post.

Inverse Functions: Arctangent and Angle Between Two Lines (Part 25)

The smallest angle between the non-perpendicular lines $y = m_1 x + b_1$ and $y = m_1 x + b_2$ can be found using the formula

$\theta = \displaystyle \tan^{-1} \left( \left| \frac{m_1 - m_2}{1 + m_1 m_2} \right| \right)$ .

A generation ago, this formula used to be taught in a typical Precalculus class (or, as it was called back then, analytical geometry). However, I find that analytic geometry has fallen out of favor in modern Precalculus courses.

Why does this formula work? Consider the graphs of $y = m_1 x$ and $y = m_1 x + b_1$ , and let’s measure the angle that the line makes with the positive $x-$ axis.

The lines $y = m_1 x + b_1$ and $y = m_1 x$ are parallel, and the $x-$ axis is a transversal intersecting these two parallel lines. Therefore, the angles that both lines make with the positive $x-$ axis are congruent. In other words, the $+ b_1$ is entirely superfluous to finding the angle $\theta_1$ . The important thing that matters is the slope of the line, not where the line intersects the $y-$ axis.

The point $(1, m_1)$ lies on the line $y = m_1 x$ , which also passes through the origin. By definition of tangent, $\tan \theta_1$ can be found by dividing the $y-$ and $x-$ coordinates:

$\tan \theta_1 = \displaystyle \frac{m}{1} = m_1$ .

green line

We now turn to the problem of finding the angle between two lines. As noted above, the $y-$ intercepts do not matter, and so we only need to find the smallest angle between the lines $y = m_1 x$ and $y = m_2 x$ .

The angle $\theta$ will either be equal to $\theta_1 - \theta_2$ or $\theta_2 - \theta_1$ , depending on the values of $m_1$ and $m_2$ . Let’s now compute both $\tan (\theta_1 - \theta_2)$ and $\tan (\theta_2 - \theta_1)$ using the formula for the difference of two angles:

$\tan (\theta_1 - \theta_2) = \displaystyle \frac{\tan \theta_1 - \tan \theta_2}{1 + \tan \theta_1 \tan \theta_2}$

$\tan (\theta_2 - \theta_1) = \displaystyle \frac{\tan \theta_2 - \tan \theta_1}{1 + \tan \theta_2 \tan \theta_1}$

Since the smallest angle $\theta$ must lie between $0$ and $\pi/2$ , the value of $\tan \theta$ must be positive (or undefined if $\theta = \pi/2$ … for now, we’ll ignore this special case). Therefore, whichever of the above two lines holds, it must be that

$\tan \theta = \displaystyle \left| \frac{\tan \theta_1 - \tan \theta_2}{1 + \tan \theta_1 \tan \theta_2} \right|$

We now use the fact that $m_1 = \tan \theta_1$ and $m_2 = \tan \theta_2$ :

$\tan \theta = \displaystyle \left| \frac{m_1 - m_2}{1 + m_1 m_2} \right|$

$\theta = \tan^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \left| \frac{m_1 - m_2}{1 + m_1 m_2} \right| \right)$

The above formula only applies to non-perpendicular lines. However, the perpendicular case may be remembered as almost a special case of the above formula. After all, $\tan \theta$ is undefined at $\theta = \pi/2 = 90^\circ$ , and the right hand side is also undefined if $1 + m_1 m_2 = 0$ . This matches the theorem that the two lines are perpendicular if and only if $m_1 m_2 = -1$ , or that the slopes of the two lines are negative reciprocals.

Inverse Functions: Arctangent and Angle Between Two Lines (Part 24)

Here’s a straightforward application of arctangent that, a generation ago, used to be taught in a typical Precalculus class (or, as it was called back then, analytical geometry).

Find the smallest angle between the lines $y= 3x$ and $y = -x/2$ .

This problem is almost equivalent to finding the angle between the vectors $\langle 1,3 \rangle$ and $\langle -2,1 \rangle$ . I use the caveat almost because the angle between two vectors could be between $0$ and $\pi$ , while the smallest angle between two lines must lie between $0$ and $\pi/2$ .

This smallest angle can be found using the formula

$\theta = \displaystyle \tan^{-1} \left( \left| \frac{m_1 - m_2}{1 + m_1 m_2} \right| \right)$ ,

where $m_1$ and $m_2$ are the slopes of the two lines. In the present case,

$\theta = \tan^{-1} \left( \left| \displaystyle \frac{ 3 - (-1/2) }{1 + (3)(-1/2)} \right| \right)$

$\theta = \tan^{-1} \left( \left| \displaystyle \frac{7/2}{-1/2} \right| \right)$

$\theta = \tan^{-1} 7$

$\theta \approx 81.87^\circ$ .

Not surprisingly, we obtain the same answer that we obtained a couple of posts ago using arccosine. The following picture makes clear why $\tan^{-1} 7 = \cos^{-1} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{50}}$ .

In tomorrow’s post, I’ll explain why the above formula actually works.

Inverse Functions: Arccosine and Dot Products (Part 23)

The Law of Cosines can be applied to find the angle between two vectors ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ . To begin, we draw the vectors ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ , as well as the vector ${\bf c}$ (to be determined momentarily) that connects the tips of the vectors ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ .

Using the usual rules for adding vectors, we see that ${\bf a} + {\bf c} = {\bf b}$ , so that ${\bf c} = {\bf b} - {\bf a}$

We now apply the Law of Cosines to find $\theta$ :

$\parallel \! \! {\bf c} \! \! \parallel^2 = \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel^2 + \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel^2 - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

$\parallel \! \! {\bf b} - {\bf a} \! \! \parallel^2 = \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel^2 + \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel^2 - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

We now apply the rule $\parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel^2 = {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a}$ , convert the square of the norms into dot products. We then use the distributive and commutative properties of dot products to simplify.

$( {\bf b} - {\bf a} ) \cdot ({\bf b} - {\bf a}) = {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} + {\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

${\bf b} \cdot ({\bf b} - {\bf a}) - {\bf a} \cdot ({\bf b} - {\bf a}) = {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} + {\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

${\bf b} \cdot ({\bf b} - {\bf a}) -{\bf a} \cdot ({\bf b} - {\bf a}) = {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} + {\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

${\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} - {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} + {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} = {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} + {\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

${\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - 2 {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} + {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} = {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} + {\bf b} \cdot {\bf b} - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

We can now cancel from the left and right sides and solve for $\cos \theta$ :

$- 2 {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} = - 2 \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel \cos \theta$

$\displaystyle \frac{ {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} }{ \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel } = \cos \theta$

Finally, we are guaranteed that the angle between two vectors must lie between $0$ and $\pi$ (or, in degrees, between $0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$ ). Since this is the range of arccosine, we are permitted to use this inverse function to solve for $\theta$ :

$\cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{ {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} }{ \parallel \! \! {\bf a} \! \! \parallel \parallel \! \! {\bf b} \! \! \parallel } \right) = \theta$

The good news is that there’s nothing special about two dimensions in the above proof, and so this formula may used for vectors in $\mathbb{R}^n$ for any dimension $n \ge 2$ .

In the next post, we’ll consider how this same problem can be solved — but only in two dimensions — using arctangent.

Inverse Functions: Arccosine and Dot Products (Part 22)

Here’s a straightforward application of arccosine, that, as far as I can tell, isn’t taught too often in Precalculus and is not part of the Common Core standards for vectors and matrices.

Find the angle between the vectors $\langle 1,3 \rangle$ and $\langle -2,1 \rangle$ .

This problem is equivalent to finding the angle between the lines $y = 3x$ and $y = -x/2$ . The angle $\theta$ is not drawn in standard position, which makes measurement of the angle initial daunting.

Fortunately, there is the straightforward formula for the angle between two vectors ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ :

$\theta = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{ {\bf a} \cdot {\bf b} }{ \parallel \!\! {\bf a} \!\! \parallel \parallel \!\! {\bf b} \!\! \parallel } \right)$

We recall that ${\bf a} \cdot {\bf b}$ is the dot product (or inner product) of the two vectors ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ , while $\parallel \!\! {\bf a} \!\! \parallel = \sqrt{ {\bf a} \cdot {\bf a} }$ is the norm (or length) of the vector ${\bf a}$ .

For this particular example,

$\theta = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{\langle 1,3 \rangle \cdot \langle -2,1 \rangle }{ \parallel \!\!\langle 1,3 \rangle \!\! \parallel \parallel \!\!\langle -2,1 \rangle \!\! \parallel } \right)$

$\theta = \cos^{-1} \left( \displaystyle \frac{ (1)(-2) + (3)(1) }{ \sqrt{ (1)^2 + (3)^2} \sqrt{ (-2)^2 + 1^2 }} \right)$

$\theta = \cos^{-1} \displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{50}}$

$\theta \approx 81.87^\circ$

In the next post, we’ll discuss why this actually works. And then we’ll consider how the same problem can be solved more directly using arctangent.