A colleague placed the following problem on an exam, expecting the following solution:
However, one student produced the following solution (see yesterday’s post for details):
As he couldn’t find a mistake in the student’s work, he assumed that the two expressions were equivalent. Indeed, he differentiated the student’s work to make sure it was right. But he couldn’t immediately see, using elementary reasoning, why they were equivalent. So he walked across the hall to my office to ask me if I could help.
Here’s how I showed they are equivalent.
Let and . Then
.
Let’s evaluate the four expressions on the right-hand side.
First, is clearly equal to .
Second, , so that
.
Third, to evaluate $\cos \alpha$, I’ll use the identity :
Fourth, . Using the above identity again, we find
Combining the above, we find
for some integer
Also, since and , we see that . (From its definition, $\beta$ is the arcsine of a positive number and therefore must be nonnegative.) Therefore, .
In other words,
and
differ by a constant, thus showing that the two antiderivatives are equivalent.
Throughout grades K-10, students are slowly introduced to the concept of angles. They are told that there are degrees in a right angle, degrees in a straight angle, and a circle has degrees. They are introduced to and right triangles. Fans of snowboarding even know the multiples of degrees up to or even degrees.
Then, in Precalculus, we make students get comfortable with , , , , , and multiples thereof.
We tell students that radians and degrees are just two ways of measuring angles, just like inches and centimeters are two ways of measuring the length of a line segment.
Still, students are extremely comfortable with measuring angles in degrees. They can easily visualize an angle of , but to visualize an angle of radians, they inevitably need to convert to degrees first. In his book Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, Nobel-Prize laureate Richard P. Feynman described himself as a boy:
I was never any good in sports. I was always terrified if a tennis ball would come over the fence and land near me, because I never could get it over the fence – it usually went about a radian off of where it was supposed to go.
Naturally, students wonder why we make them get comfortable with measuring angles with radians.
The short answer, appropriate for Precalculus students: Certain formulas are a little easier to write with radians as opposed to degrees, which in turn make certain formulas in calculus a lot easier.
The longer answer, which Precalculus students would not appreciate, is that radian measure is needed to make the derivatives of and look palatable.
In both of these formulas, the angle must be measured in radians.
Students may complain that it’d be easy to make a formula of is measured in degrees, and they’d be right:
and
However, getting rid of the makes the following computations from calculus a lot easier.
2a. Early in calculus, the limit
is derived using the Sandwich Theorem (or Pinching Theorem or Squeeze Theorem). I won’t reinvent the wheel by writing out the proof, but it can be found here. The first step of the proof uses the formula for the above formula for the area of a circular sector.
2b. Using the trigonometric identity , we replace by to find
3. Both of the above limits — as well as the formulas for and — are needed to prove that and . Again, I won’t reinvent the wheel, but the proofs can be found here.
So, to make a long story short, radians are used to make the derivatives $y = \sin x$ and $y = \cos x$ easier to remember. It is logically possible to differentiate these functions using degrees instead of radians — see http://www.math.ubc.ca/~feldman/m100/sinUnits.pdf. However, possible is not the same thing as preferable, as calculus is a whole lot easier without these extra factors of floating around.