Proving that $arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)=pm pi/2$, could this line of reasoning possibly be correct?
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
I know that two questions have already been asked about this exercise, but what I'm asking here is if this solution, which sounds rather strange to me, could possibly be correct. The problems is as follows:
Prove that $,f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)= pi/2,$ if $,x>0,$ and $,-pi/2,$ if $,x<0$.
What I did was this: first of all we note that, since $-pi/2<arctan y<pi/2$ for all $y$, $-pi<f(x)<pi$. Now , consider
$$
tanbig(f(x)big)
= tanleft(arctan(x)+arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)
= frac{tanleft(arctan(x)right) + tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}
{1 - tanbig(arctanleft(xright)big) tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}=frac{x+(1/x)}{0},
$$
which is undefined. Since the tangent function is undefined, in $[-pi, pi]$, if and only if its argument is $pm pi/2$, then $f(x)=pm pi/2$. It's easy to see that if $x<0$, then $arctan(x)<0$, hence $f(x)=-pi/2$ and viceversa.
I have found a few other solution to this problem, but I wanted to know if this one is logically acceptable.
trigonometry proof-verification
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
I know that two questions have already been asked about this exercise, but what I'm asking here is if this solution, which sounds rather strange to me, could possibly be correct. The problems is as follows:
Prove that $,f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)= pi/2,$ if $,x>0,$ and $,-pi/2,$ if $,x<0$.
What I did was this: first of all we note that, since $-pi/2<arctan y<pi/2$ for all $y$, $-pi<f(x)<pi$. Now , consider
$$
tanbig(f(x)big)
= tanleft(arctan(x)+arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)
= frac{tanleft(arctan(x)right) + tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}
{1 - tanbig(arctanleft(xright)big) tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}=frac{x+(1/x)}{0},
$$
which is undefined. Since the tangent function is undefined, in $[-pi, pi]$, if and only if its argument is $pm pi/2$, then $f(x)=pm pi/2$. It's easy to see that if $x<0$, then $arctan(x)<0$, hence $f(x)=-pi/2$ and viceversa.
I have found a few other solution to this problem, but I wanted to know if this one is logically acceptable.
trigonometry proof-verification
1
Thumbs up from my side! Will be curious to see if someone can find a problem with this.
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 11 '15 at 6:04
7
Cute.You can re-phrase it to say "if tan f(x) exists then it equals (x+1/x)/0 ,therefore it doesn't exist,therefore |f(x)|= pi/2"
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:28
1
Reminder to Deepak Gupta .It's infty , not infinity in LaTeX.
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:30
4
Looks good to me. The sequence of equations starting with $tan(f(x))$ assumes (at first) that $tan(f(x))$ is defined, then proves by contradiction that it is not. You could say "assume $tan(f(x))$ is defined" before those equations, but I don't think you really need to. The assumption is implied by the fact that you wrote an equation.
– David K
Sep 13 '15 at 16:28
4
I think there's a problem with the use of the formula related to $tan(x+y)$ because this formula is valid when everything is defined. I think it's better to infere $f(x)=pmfracpi2$ only by showing that $1-tanarctan xtanarctanfrac1x=0$.
– Mohsen Shahriari
Sep 13 '15 at 22:36
|
show 8 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
up vote
22
down vote
favorite
I know that two questions have already been asked about this exercise, but what I'm asking here is if this solution, which sounds rather strange to me, could possibly be correct. The problems is as follows:
Prove that $,f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)= pi/2,$ if $,x>0,$ and $,-pi/2,$ if $,x<0$.
What I did was this: first of all we note that, since $-pi/2<arctan y<pi/2$ for all $y$, $-pi<f(x)<pi$. Now , consider
$$
tanbig(f(x)big)
= tanleft(arctan(x)+arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)
= frac{tanleft(arctan(x)right) + tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}
{1 - tanbig(arctanleft(xright)big) tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}=frac{x+(1/x)}{0},
$$
which is undefined. Since the tangent function is undefined, in $[-pi, pi]$, if and only if its argument is $pm pi/2$, then $f(x)=pm pi/2$. It's easy to see that if $x<0$, then $arctan(x)<0$, hence $f(x)=-pi/2$ and viceversa.
I have found a few other solution to this problem, but I wanted to know if this one is logically acceptable.
trigonometry proof-verification
I know that two questions have already been asked about this exercise, but what I'm asking here is if this solution, which sounds rather strange to me, could possibly be correct. The problems is as follows:
Prove that $,f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)= pi/2,$ if $,x>0,$ and $,-pi/2,$ if $,x<0$.
What I did was this: first of all we note that, since $-pi/2<arctan y<pi/2$ for all $y$, $-pi<f(x)<pi$. Now , consider
$$
tanbig(f(x)big)
= tanleft(arctan(x)+arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)
= frac{tanleft(arctan(x)right) + tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}
{1 - tanbig(arctanleft(xright)big) tanleft(arctanleft(frac{1}{x} right)right)}=frac{x+(1/x)}{0},
$$
which is undefined. Since the tangent function is undefined, in $[-pi, pi]$, if and only if its argument is $pm pi/2$, then $f(x)=pm pi/2$. It's easy to see that if $x<0$, then $arctan(x)<0$, hence $f(x)=-pi/2$ and viceversa.
I have found a few other solution to this problem, but I wanted to know if this one is logically acceptable.
trigonometry proof-verification
trigonometry proof-verification
edited Sep 14 '15 at 3:30
Vlad
4,72932458
4,72932458
asked Sep 11 '15 at 5:59
Nicol
6931716
6931716
1
Thumbs up from my side! Will be curious to see if someone can find a problem with this.
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 11 '15 at 6:04
7
Cute.You can re-phrase it to say "if tan f(x) exists then it equals (x+1/x)/0 ,therefore it doesn't exist,therefore |f(x)|= pi/2"
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:28
1
Reminder to Deepak Gupta .It's infty , not infinity in LaTeX.
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:30
4
Looks good to me. The sequence of equations starting with $tan(f(x))$ assumes (at first) that $tan(f(x))$ is defined, then proves by contradiction that it is not. You could say "assume $tan(f(x))$ is defined" before those equations, but I don't think you really need to. The assumption is implied by the fact that you wrote an equation.
– David K
Sep 13 '15 at 16:28
4
I think there's a problem with the use of the formula related to $tan(x+y)$ because this formula is valid when everything is defined. I think it's better to infere $f(x)=pmfracpi2$ only by showing that $1-tanarctan xtanarctanfrac1x=0$.
– Mohsen Shahriari
Sep 13 '15 at 22:36
|
show 8 more comments
1
Thumbs up from my side! Will be curious to see if someone can find a problem with this.
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 11 '15 at 6:04
7
Cute.You can re-phrase it to say "if tan f(x) exists then it equals (x+1/x)/0 ,therefore it doesn't exist,therefore |f(x)|= pi/2"
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:28
1
Reminder to Deepak Gupta .It's infty , not infinity in LaTeX.
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:30
4
Looks good to me. The sequence of equations starting with $tan(f(x))$ assumes (at first) that $tan(f(x))$ is defined, then proves by contradiction that it is not. You could say "assume $tan(f(x))$ is defined" before those equations, but I don't think you really need to. The assumption is implied by the fact that you wrote an equation.
– David K
Sep 13 '15 at 16:28
4
I think there's a problem with the use of the formula related to $tan(x+y)$ because this formula is valid when everything is defined. I think it's better to infere $f(x)=pmfracpi2$ only by showing that $1-tanarctan xtanarctanfrac1x=0$.
– Mohsen Shahriari
Sep 13 '15 at 22:36
1
1
Thumbs up from my side! Will be curious to see if someone can find a problem with this.
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 11 '15 at 6:04
Thumbs up from my side! Will be curious to see if someone can find a problem with this.
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 11 '15 at 6:04
7
7
Cute.You can re-phrase it to say "if tan f(x) exists then it equals (x+1/x)/0 ,therefore it doesn't exist,therefore |f(x)|= pi/2"
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:28
Cute.You can re-phrase it to say "if tan f(x) exists then it equals (x+1/x)/0 ,therefore it doesn't exist,therefore |f(x)|= pi/2"
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:28
1
1
Reminder to Deepak Gupta .It's infty , not infinity in LaTeX.
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:30
Reminder to Deepak Gupta .It's infty , not infinity in LaTeX.
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:30
4
4
Looks good to me. The sequence of equations starting with $tan(f(x))$ assumes (at first) that $tan(f(x))$ is defined, then proves by contradiction that it is not. You could say "assume $tan(f(x))$ is defined" before those equations, but I don't think you really need to. The assumption is implied by the fact that you wrote an equation.
– David K
Sep 13 '15 at 16:28
Looks good to me. The sequence of equations starting with $tan(f(x))$ assumes (at first) that $tan(f(x))$ is defined, then proves by contradiction that it is not. You could say "assume $tan(f(x))$ is defined" before those equations, but I don't think you really need to. The assumption is implied by the fact that you wrote an equation.
– David K
Sep 13 '15 at 16:28
4
4
I think there's a problem with the use of the formula related to $tan(x+y)$ because this formula is valid when everything is defined. I think it's better to infere $f(x)=pmfracpi2$ only by showing that $1-tanarctan xtanarctanfrac1x=0$.
– Mohsen Shahriari
Sep 13 '15 at 22:36
I think there's a problem with the use of the formula related to $tan(x+y)$ because this formula is valid when everything is defined. I think it's better to infere $f(x)=pmfracpi2$ only by showing that $1-tanarctan xtanarctanfrac1x=0$.
– Mohsen Shahriari
Sep 13 '15 at 22:36
|
show 8 more comments
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Whatever you have done is correct and nothing is wrong there.You could get the same as follows also:
Note that : $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$, when $xlt0$...(A) and is equal to $tan^{-1}1/x$ when $xgt0$..(B)
PROOF:I am proving for $x$ being negative.For +ve $x$ it's quite easy to prove.
Suppose, $y=-z$, ($z$ is positive ), hen $cot^{-1}(y)=cot^{-1}(-z)=pi -cot^{-1}(z)$ Now you might be knowing :$cot^{-1}(z)=tan^{-1}(1/z)$ for positive $z$, hence $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi - tan^{-1}(1/z)$. Now substitue $z=-y$, then use $tan^{-1}(-1/y)=-tan^{-1}(1/y)$ and you get the result.
Now you may argue: why $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi-cot^{-1}z$?
Well, it's because :Let $z=cottheta$, $0<theta<pi$[principal branch of $cot$]. So $-z=cot(pi-theta)$ , Note that $pi- theta$ is also in between $0$ and $pi$. So you can define $cot^{-1}(-z)$, which in this case will be: $pi -theta$, Now put $theta=cot^{-1}(z)$, Hence proved.
So coming to: $tan^{-1}x +tan^{-1}1/x=I$, say
So $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x=pi/2$, when $xgt0$ [by (B)]
And $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x-pi=pi/2-pi=-pi/2$, when $x lt0$ [by (A)]
1
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
1
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Right triangle with legs $1$ and $x$, just remembering the sum of all the angles of a triangle, is $pi$. In case of a right triangle, $alpha+beta={piover2}$ for any $x$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Here's a proof
in the case when
$x > 0$.
Draw a right triangle
with legs $1$ and $x$,
with the leg of length $x$
opposite angle $A$.
Then
$tan(A) = x$
and
$tan(B) = 1/x$,
so $A = arctan(x)$
and
$B = arctan(1/x)$.
Since $A+B = pi/2$,
$arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)
= pi/2
$.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The tangent function should be defined to take the value $infty$ at $pmpi/2$, and this $infty$ is neither $+infty$ or $-infty$, but is the $infty$ that is approached by going either in the positive direction or the negative direction. That makes the tangent function everywhere continuous, including continuity at $pmpi/2$.
If one also identifies $+pi/2$ with $-pi/2$ so that the domain of the tangent function is topologically a circle one of whose points is $+pi/2=-pi/2$, then the tangent function is one-to-one. There is only one point in its domain that maps to $infty$, namely $+pi/2=-pi/2$.
After that, there remains the question of whether the standard identity for the tangent of a sum applies when $infty$ occurs among the values of the functions involved. To address that we should also take $infty$ (not $+infty$ and not $-infty$) to be the value of a rational function wherever it has a vertical asymptote. This makes rational functions everywhere continuous. Then we have
begin{align}
tan(alpha+beta) & overset{hugetext{?}}= frac{sin(alpha+beta)}{cos(alpha+beta)} tag 1 \[10pt]
& {} = frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta}. tag 2
end{align}
Notice that in $(1)$, the sine and cosine cannot both be $0$, so we need not consider what happens then.
In the standard argument, we divide both the numerator and the denominator by $cosalphacosbeta$, getting this:
$$
frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta} = frac{frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha} - frac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}}{1 - frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha}cdotfrac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}} tag 3
$$
All this is valid when there are no $0$s in denominators. We need to deal with $0$s in denominators.
First consider the case in which the denominator in $(1)$ is $0$ but $cosalphane0necosbeta$. Then the denominator on the right side of $(3)$ is $0$. But the numerator on the right is not $0$, since the numerator on the left is not $0$; the numerator on the left side of $(3)$ cannot be $0$ since $sin(alpha+beta) ne 0$. Hence the standard identity holds in that case.
Next consider the case where $cos(alpha+beta)=0$ and $cosalpha=0$. Then
$$
fracpi2 = - fracpi2 = alpha+beta = fracpi2+beta = -fracpi2 + beta
$$
and we're done.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can't compute $tantheta$ when $theta=pmfracpi2$, but you can compute $costheta$ instead.
For $a,bin mathbb{R}$ with $abne 1$ we have
begin{eqnarray}
cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))&=&frac{1}{1+tan^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))}=frac{1}{1+left(frac{a+b}{1-ab}right)^2}\
&=&frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}.
end{eqnarray}
It follows that
$$
cos^2(f(x))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}=0,
$$
i.e. $f(x)=pmfracpi2$. Since $f$ is continuous on $(-infty,0)$ and on $(0,infty)$, we deduce that
$$
f(x)=f(-1)=2arctan(-1)=-fracpi2 quad forall x<0,
$$
and
$$
f(x)=-f(-x)=fracpi2 quad forall x>0
$$
Added
The function $f: xmapsto f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(x^{-1})$ defined and differentiable of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$. For every $xne 0$ we have
$$
f'(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}+dfrac{-x^{-2}}{1+x^{-2}}=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}-dfrac{1}{x^2+1}=0
$$
Therefore, $f$ is constant on each connected component of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$.
Since
$$
f(1)=2arctan(1)=2dfrac{pi}{4}=dfrac{pi}{2},quad f(-1)=-f(1)=-dfrac{pi}{2},
$$
it follows that
$$
arctan(x)+arctanleft(dfrac{1}{x}right)=begin{cases}-dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x<0\
dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x>0
end{cases}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I just figured I'd throw this in.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Then $f'(x) = dfrac{1}{1+x^2} - dfrac{dfrac{1}{x^2}}{1 + dfrac{1}{x^2}} = 0$.
Hence $f(x)$ is constant on $(0, infty)$.
Since $f(1) = dfrac{pi}{4} + dfrac{pi}{4} = dfrac{pi}{2}$,
we conclude that
$f(x) = dfrac{pi}{2}$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Addendum
If you're not ready for calculus, for the same
$x in (0, infty)$,
Consider the point
$P = (1, x)$, in the first quadrant, with corresponding angle
$0 lt theta lt dfrac{pi}{2}$.
Let $hat{theta} = dfrac{pi}{2} - theta$.
Then, also, $0 lt hat{theta} lt dfrac{pi}{2}$ and
$tan(hat theta)
= tan left( dfrac{pi}{2} - theta right)
= cot theta = dfrac 1x$
It follows that
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x
= theta + hat theta
= dfrac{pi}{2}$
For all $x in (-infty, 0)$, we have
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x =
-left(arctan(-x) + arctan left(-dfrac 1x right) right) =
-f(-x) = -dfrac{pi}{2}$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Your logic is entirely correct.
The functions $tan^{-1} x $ and $tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ are both odd functions. Accordingly their additive $tan^{-1} x + tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ must be odd with $ + pi/2 $ value for positive arguments and $ - pi/2 $ value for negative arguments.
This function results by subtracting $ pi/2$ from the step function 0 to $pi$ jump at x = 0 and so making it an odd function of opposite sign for arguments of opposite sign, defining the $ f(x) $ to be $pi/2 $ for $ x>0, 0$ for $ x=0 $ and $ - pi/2 $ for $ x<0. $
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An alternative proof using calculus.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all real $x$ except $0$.
$$frac {df(x)} {dx}= frac{1}{x^2+1} + frac {1}{1+1/x^2}*frac{-1}{x^2} = frac{1}{x^2+1} - frac{1}{x^2+1} = 0 $$
Integrating on both sides we get
$$f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = C,$$ where $C$ is a constant.
Since the function is discontinuous at $x=0$ the constant value can be different on both sides.
It can be obtained for $x>0$ by for example setting $x=1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(1) + arctan(1) = pi/4 + pi/4 = pi/2 $$
Similarly, for $x=-1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(-1) + arctan(-1) = -pi/4 -pi/4 = -pi/2 $$
So, in conclusion, $$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = pi/2 $$ for $x>0$
and
$$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = -pi/2 $$ for $x<0$.
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Whatever you have done is correct and nothing is wrong there.You could get the same as follows also:
Note that : $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$, when $xlt0$...(A) and is equal to $tan^{-1}1/x$ when $xgt0$..(B)
PROOF:I am proving for $x$ being negative.For +ve $x$ it's quite easy to prove.
Suppose, $y=-z$, ($z$ is positive ), hen $cot^{-1}(y)=cot^{-1}(-z)=pi -cot^{-1}(z)$ Now you might be knowing :$cot^{-1}(z)=tan^{-1}(1/z)$ for positive $z$, hence $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi - tan^{-1}(1/z)$. Now substitue $z=-y$, then use $tan^{-1}(-1/y)=-tan^{-1}(1/y)$ and you get the result.
Now you may argue: why $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi-cot^{-1}z$?
Well, it's because :Let $z=cottheta$, $0<theta<pi$[principal branch of $cot$]. So $-z=cot(pi-theta)$ , Note that $pi- theta$ is also in between $0$ and $pi$. So you can define $cot^{-1}(-z)$, which in this case will be: $pi -theta$, Now put $theta=cot^{-1}(z)$, Hence proved.
So coming to: $tan^{-1}x +tan^{-1}1/x=I$, say
So $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x=pi/2$, when $xgt0$ [by (B)]
And $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x-pi=pi/2-pi=-pi/2$, when $x lt0$ [by (A)]
1
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
1
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Whatever you have done is correct and nothing is wrong there.You could get the same as follows also:
Note that : $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$, when $xlt0$...(A) and is equal to $tan^{-1}1/x$ when $xgt0$..(B)
PROOF:I am proving for $x$ being negative.For +ve $x$ it's quite easy to prove.
Suppose, $y=-z$, ($z$ is positive ), hen $cot^{-1}(y)=cot^{-1}(-z)=pi -cot^{-1}(z)$ Now you might be knowing :$cot^{-1}(z)=tan^{-1}(1/z)$ for positive $z$, hence $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi - tan^{-1}(1/z)$. Now substitue $z=-y$, then use $tan^{-1}(-1/y)=-tan^{-1}(1/y)$ and you get the result.
Now you may argue: why $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi-cot^{-1}z$?
Well, it's because :Let $z=cottheta$, $0<theta<pi$[principal branch of $cot$]. So $-z=cot(pi-theta)$ , Note that $pi- theta$ is also in between $0$ and $pi$. So you can define $cot^{-1}(-z)$, which in this case will be: $pi -theta$, Now put $theta=cot^{-1}(z)$, Hence proved.
So coming to: $tan^{-1}x +tan^{-1}1/x=I$, say
So $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x=pi/2$, when $xgt0$ [by (B)]
And $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x-pi=pi/2-pi=-pi/2$, when $x lt0$ [by (A)]
1
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
1
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Whatever you have done is correct and nothing is wrong there.You could get the same as follows also:
Note that : $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$, when $xlt0$...(A) and is equal to $tan^{-1}1/x$ when $xgt0$..(B)
PROOF:I am proving for $x$ being negative.For +ve $x$ it's quite easy to prove.
Suppose, $y=-z$, ($z$ is positive ), hen $cot^{-1}(y)=cot^{-1}(-z)=pi -cot^{-1}(z)$ Now you might be knowing :$cot^{-1}(z)=tan^{-1}(1/z)$ for positive $z$, hence $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi - tan^{-1}(1/z)$. Now substitue $z=-y$, then use $tan^{-1}(-1/y)=-tan^{-1}(1/y)$ and you get the result.
Now you may argue: why $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi-cot^{-1}z$?
Well, it's because :Let $z=cottheta$, $0<theta<pi$[principal branch of $cot$]. So $-z=cot(pi-theta)$ , Note that $pi- theta$ is also in between $0$ and $pi$. So you can define $cot^{-1}(-z)$, which in this case will be: $pi -theta$, Now put $theta=cot^{-1}(z)$, Hence proved.
So coming to: $tan^{-1}x +tan^{-1}1/x=I$, say
So $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x=pi/2$, when $xgt0$ [by (B)]
And $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x-pi=pi/2-pi=-pi/2$, when $x lt0$ [by (A)]
Whatever you have done is correct and nothing is wrong there.You could get the same as follows also:
Note that : $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$, when $xlt0$...(A) and is equal to $tan^{-1}1/x$ when $xgt0$..(B)
PROOF:I am proving for $x$ being negative.For +ve $x$ it's quite easy to prove.
Suppose, $y=-z$, ($z$ is positive ), hen $cot^{-1}(y)=cot^{-1}(-z)=pi -cot^{-1}(z)$ Now you might be knowing :$cot^{-1}(z)=tan^{-1}(1/z)$ for positive $z$, hence $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi - tan^{-1}(1/z)$. Now substitue $z=-y$, then use $tan^{-1}(-1/y)=-tan^{-1}(1/y)$ and you get the result.
Now you may argue: why $cot^{-1}(-z)=pi-cot^{-1}z$?
Well, it's because :Let $z=cottheta$, $0<theta<pi$[principal branch of $cot$]. So $-z=cot(pi-theta)$ , Note that $pi- theta$ is also in between $0$ and $pi$. So you can define $cot^{-1}(-z)$, which in this case will be: $pi -theta$, Now put $theta=cot^{-1}(z)$, Hence proved.
So coming to: $tan^{-1}x +tan^{-1}1/x=I$, say
So $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x=pi/2$, when $xgt0$ [by (B)]
And $I=tan^{-1}x +cot^{-1}x-pi=pi/2-pi=-pi/2$, when $x lt0$ [by (A)]
edited Sep 19 '15 at 0:51
Michael Hardy
1
1
answered Sep 13 '15 at 15:46
Suraj_Singh
765516
765516
1
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
1
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
add a comment |
1
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
1
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
1
1
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
Do you see a typographical difference between $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}1/x$ -$pi$ and $tan^{-1}x=tan^{-1}1/x -pi$? The latter is proper usage. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 0:48
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,both are the same.What do you actually want to say?Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:34
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,oh! now I see.Thanks for information!
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:38
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
@MichaelHardy,anyways what is wrong with the first usage??Please explain.
– Suraj_Singh
Sep 19 '15 at 1:39
1
1
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
Look at it. In the first example, the minus sign before $pi$ looks like a hypen rather than a minus sign and lacks spacing to its left and right, thus $1/xtext{-}pi$ instead of $1/x-pi$. The "equals" sign is also to small for the font size and lacks spacing no the left and right, thus: $tan^{-1}x$=$tan^{-1}$ etc. instead of $tan^{-1}x=tan$ etc. ${}qquad{}$
– Michael Hardy
Sep 19 '15 at 2:05
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Right triangle with legs $1$ and $x$, just remembering the sum of all the angles of a triangle, is $pi$. In case of a right triangle, $alpha+beta={piover2}$ for any $x$.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Right triangle with legs $1$ and $x$, just remembering the sum of all the angles of a triangle, is $pi$. In case of a right triangle, $alpha+beta={piover2}$ for any $x$.
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Right triangle with legs $1$ and $x$, just remembering the sum of all the angles of a triangle, is $pi$. In case of a right triangle, $alpha+beta={piover2}$ for any $x$.
Right triangle with legs $1$ and $x$, just remembering the sum of all the angles of a triangle, is $pi$. In case of a right triangle, $alpha+beta={piover2}$ for any $x$.
edited Feb 16 '17 at 21:13
Daniel Fischer♦
172k16158281
172k16158281
answered Feb 16 '17 at 19:26
Gustavo Mezzovilla
30737
30737
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Here's a proof
in the case when
$x > 0$.
Draw a right triangle
with legs $1$ and $x$,
with the leg of length $x$
opposite angle $A$.
Then
$tan(A) = x$
and
$tan(B) = 1/x$,
so $A = arctan(x)$
and
$B = arctan(1/x)$.
Since $A+B = pi/2$,
$arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)
= pi/2
$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Here's a proof
in the case when
$x > 0$.
Draw a right triangle
with legs $1$ and $x$,
with the leg of length $x$
opposite angle $A$.
Then
$tan(A) = x$
and
$tan(B) = 1/x$,
so $A = arctan(x)$
and
$B = arctan(1/x)$.
Since $A+B = pi/2$,
$arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)
= pi/2
$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Here's a proof
in the case when
$x > 0$.
Draw a right triangle
with legs $1$ and $x$,
with the leg of length $x$
opposite angle $A$.
Then
$tan(A) = x$
and
$tan(B) = 1/x$,
so $A = arctan(x)$
and
$B = arctan(1/x)$.
Since $A+B = pi/2$,
$arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)
= pi/2
$.
Here's a proof
in the case when
$x > 0$.
Draw a right triangle
with legs $1$ and $x$,
with the leg of length $x$
opposite angle $A$.
Then
$tan(A) = x$
and
$tan(B) = 1/x$,
so $A = arctan(x)$
and
$B = arctan(1/x)$.
Since $A+B = pi/2$,
$arctan(x)+arctan(1/x)
= pi/2
$.
answered Sep 19 '15 at 0:23
marty cohen
71.4k546123
71.4k546123
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The tangent function should be defined to take the value $infty$ at $pmpi/2$, and this $infty$ is neither $+infty$ or $-infty$, but is the $infty$ that is approached by going either in the positive direction or the negative direction. That makes the tangent function everywhere continuous, including continuity at $pmpi/2$.
If one also identifies $+pi/2$ with $-pi/2$ so that the domain of the tangent function is topologically a circle one of whose points is $+pi/2=-pi/2$, then the tangent function is one-to-one. There is only one point in its domain that maps to $infty$, namely $+pi/2=-pi/2$.
After that, there remains the question of whether the standard identity for the tangent of a sum applies when $infty$ occurs among the values of the functions involved. To address that we should also take $infty$ (not $+infty$ and not $-infty$) to be the value of a rational function wherever it has a vertical asymptote. This makes rational functions everywhere continuous. Then we have
begin{align}
tan(alpha+beta) & overset{hugetext{?}}= frac{sin(alpha+beta)}{cos(alpha+beta)} tag 1 \[10pt]
& {} = frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta}. tag 2
end{align}
Notice that in $(1)$, the sine and cosine cannot both be $0$, so we need not consider what happens then.
In the standard argument, we divide both the numerator and the denominator by $cosalphacosbeta$, getting this:
$$
frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta} = frac{frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha} - frac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}}{1 - frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha}cdotfrac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}} tag 3
$$
All this is valid when there are no $0$s in denominators. We need to deal with $0$s in denominators.
First consider the case in which the denominator in $(1)$ is $0$ but $cosalphane0necosbeta$. Then the denominator on the right side of $(3)$ is $0$. But the numerator on the right is not $0$, since the numerator on the left is not $0$; the numerator on the left side of $(3)$ cannot be $0$ since $sin(alpha+beta) ne 0$. Hence the standard identity holds in that case.
Next consider the case where $cos(alpha+beta)=0$ and $cosalpha=0$. Then
$$
fracpi2 = - fracpi2 = alpha+beta = fracpi2+beta = -fracpi2 + beta
$$
and we're done.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The tangent function should be defined to take the value $infty$ at $pmpi/2$, and this $infty$ is neither $+infty$ or $-infty$, but is the $infty$ that is approached by going either in the positive direction or the negative direction. That makes the tangent function everywhere continuous, including continuity at $pmpi/2$.
If one also identifies $+pi/2$ with $-pi/2$ so that the domain of the tangent function is topologically a circle one of whose points is $+pi/2=-pi/2$, then the tangent function is one-to-one. There is only one point in its domain that maps to $infty$, namely $+pi/2=-pi/2$.
After that, there remains the question of whether the standard identity for the tangent of a sum applies when $infty$ occurs among the values of the functions involved. To address that we should also take $infty$ (not $+infty$ and not $-infty$) to be the value of a rational function wherever it has a vertical asymptote. This makes rational functions everywhere continuous. Then we have
begin{align}
tan(alpha+beta) & overset{hugetext{?}}= frac{sin(alpha+beta)}{cos(alpha+beta)} tag 1 \[10pt]
& {} = frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta}. tag 2
end{align}
Notice that in $(1)$, the sine and cosine cannot both be $0$, so we need not consider what happens then.
In the standard argument, we divide both the numerator and the denominator by $cosalphacosbeta$, getting this:
$$
frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta} = frac{frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha} - frac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}}{1 - frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha}cdotfrac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}} tag 3
$$
All this is valid when there are no $0$s in denominators. We need to deal with $0$s in denominators.
First consider the case in which the denominator in $(1)$ is $0$ but $cosalphane0necosbeta$. Then the denominator on the right side of $(3)$ is $0$. But the numerator on the right is not $0$, since the numerator on the left is not $0$; the numerator on the left side of $(3)$ cannot be $0$ since $sin(alpha+beta) ne 0$. Hence the standard identity holds in that case.
Next consider the case where $cos(alpha+beta)=0$ and $cosalpha=0$. Then
$$
fracpi2 = - fracpi2 = alpha+beta = fracpi2+beta = -fracpi2 + beta
$$
and we're done.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The tangent function should be defined to take the value $infty$ at $pmpi/2$, and this $infty$ is neither $+infty$ or $-infty$, but is the $infty$ that is approached by going either in the positive direction or the negative direction. That makes the tangent function everywhere continuous, including continuity at $pmpi/2$.
If one also identifies $+pi/2$ with $-pi/2$ so that the domain of the tangent function is topologically a circle one of whose points is $+pi/2=-pi/2$, then the tangent function is one-to-one. There is only one point in its domain that maps to $infty$, namely $+pi/2=-pi/2$.
After that, there remains the question of whether the standard identity for the tangent of a sum applies when $infty$ occurs among the values of the functions involved. To address that we should also take $infty$ (not $+infty$ and not $-infty$) to be the value of a rational function wherever it has a vertical asymptote. This makes rational functions everywhere continuous. Then we have
begin{align}
tan(alpha+beta) & overset{hugetext{?}}= frac{sin(alpha+beta)}{cos(alpha+beta)} tag 1 \[10pt]
& {} = frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta}. tag 2
end{align}
Notice that in $(1)$, the sine and cosine cannot both be $0$, so we need not consider what happens then.
In the standard argument, we divide both the numerator and the denominator by $cosalphacosbeta$, getting this:
$$
frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta} = frac{frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha} - frac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}}{1 - frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha}cdotfrac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}} tag 3
$$
All this is valid when there are no $0$s in denominators. We need to deal with $0$s in denominators.
First consider the case in which the denominator in $(1)$ is $0$ but $cosalphane0necosbeta$. Then the denominator on the right side of $(3)$ is $0$. But the numerator on the right is not $0$, since the numerator on the left is not $0$; the numerator on the left side of $(3)$ cannot be $0$ since $sin(alpha+beta) ne 0$. Hence the standard identity holds in that case.
Next consider the case where $cos(alpha+beta)=0$ and $cosalpha=0$. Then
$$
fracpi2 = - fracpi2 = alpha+beta = fracpi2+beta = -fracpi2 + beta
$$
and we're done.
The tangent function should be defined to take the value $infty$ at $pmpi/2$, and this $infty$ is neither $+infty$ or $-infty$, but is the $infty$ that is approached by going either in the positive direction or the negative direction. That makes the tangent function everywhere continuous, including continuity at $pmpi/2$.
If one also identifies $+pi/2$ with $-pi/2$ so that the domain of the tangent function is topologically a circle one of whose points is $+pi/2=-pi/2$, then the tangent function is one-to-one. There is only one point in its domain that maps to $infty$, namely $+pi/2=-pi/2$.
After that, there remains the question of whether the standard identity for the tangent of a sum applies when $infty$ occurs among the values of the functions involved. To address that we should also take $infty$ (not $+infty$ and not $-infty$) to be the value of a rational function wherever it has a vertical asymptote. This makes rational functions everywhere continuous. Then we have
begin{align}
tan(alpha+beta) & overset{hugetext{?}}= frac{sin(alpha+beta)}{cos(alpha+beta)} tag 1 \[10pt]
& {} = frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta}. tag 2
end{align}
Notice that in $(1)$, the sine and cosine cannot both be $0$, so we need not consider what happens then.
In the standard argument, we divide both the numerator and the denominator by $cosalphacosbeta$, getting this:
$$
frac{sinalphacosbeta+cosalphasinbeta}{cosalphacosbeta-sinalphasinbeta} = frac{frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha} - frac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}}{1 - frac{sinalpha}{cosalpha}cdotfrac{sinbeta}{cosbeta}} tag 3
$$
All this is valid when there are no $0$s in denominators. We need to deal with $0$s in denominators.
First consider the case in which the denominator in $(1)$ is $0$ but $cosalphane0necosbeta$. Then the denominator on the right side of $(3)$ is $0$. But the numerator on the right is not $0$, since the numerator on the left is not $0$; the numerator on the left side of $(3)$ cannot be $0$ since $sin(alpha+beta) ne 0$. Hence the standard identity holds in that case.
Next consider the case where $cos(alpha+beta)=0$ and $cosalpha=0$. Then
$$
fracpi2 = - fracpi2 = alpha+beta = fracpi2+beta = -fracpi2 + beta
$$
and we're done.
answered Sep 19 '15 at 2:01
Michael Hardy
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can't compute $tantheta$ when $theta=pmfracpi2$, but you can compute $costheta$ instead.
For $a,bin mathbb{R}$ with $abne 1$ we have
begin{eqnarray}
cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))&=&frac{1}{1+tan^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))}=frac{1}{1+left(frac{a+b}{1-ab}right)^2}\
&=&frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}.
end{eqnarray}
It follows that
$$
cos^2(f(x))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}=0,
$$
i.e. $f(x)=pmfracpi2$. Since $f$ is continuous on $(-infty,0)$ and on $(0,infty)$, we deduce that
$$
f(x)=f(-1)=2arctan(-1)=-fracpi2 quad forall x<0,
$$
and
$$
f(x)=-f(-x)=fracpi2 quad forall x>0
$$
Added
The function $f: xmapsto f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(x^{-1})$ defined and differentiable of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$. For every $xne 0$ we have
$$
f'(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}+dfrac{-x^{-2}}{1+x^{-2}}=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}-dfrac{1}{x^2+1}=0
$$
Therefore, $f$ is constant on each connected component of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$.
Since
$$
f(1)=2arctan(1)=2dfrac{pi}{4}=dfrac{pi}{2},quad f(-1)=-f(1)=-dfrac{pi}{2},
$$
it follows that
$$
arctan(x)+arctanleft(dfrac{1}{x}right)=begin{cases}-dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x<0\
dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x>0
end{cases}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can't compute $tantheta$ when $theta=pmfracpi2$, but you can compute $costheta$ instead.
For $a,bin mathbb{R}$ with $abne 1$ we have
begin{eqnarray}
cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))&=&frac{1}{1+tan^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))}=frac{1}{1+left(frac{a+b}{1-ab}right)^2}\
&=&frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}.
end{eqnarray}
It follows that
$$
cos^2(f(x))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}=0,
$$
i.e. $f(x)=pmfracpi2$. Since $f$ is continuous on $(-infty,0)$ and on $(0,infty)$, we deduce that
$$
f(x)=f(-1)=2arctan(-1)=-fracpi2 quad forall x<0,
$$
and
$$
f(x)=-f(-x)=fracpi2 quad forall x>0
$$
Added
The function $f: xmapsto f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(x^{-1})$ defined and differentiable of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$. For every $xne 0$ we have
$$
f'(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}+dfrac{-x^{-2}}{1+x^{-2}}=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}-dfrac{1}{x^2+1}=0
$$
Therefore, $f$ is constant on each connected component of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$.
Since
$$
f(1)=2arctan(1)=2dfrac{pi}{4}=dfrac{pi}{2},quad f(-1)=-f(1)=-dfrac{pi}{2},
$$
it follows that
$$
arctan(x)+arctanleft(dfrac{1}{x}right)=begin{cases}-dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x<0\
dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x>0
end{cases}.
$$
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You can't compute $tantheta$ when $theta=pmfracpi2$, but you can compute $costheta$ instead.
For $a,bin mathbb{R}$ with $abne 1$ we have
begin{eqnarray}
cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))&=&frac{1}{1+tan^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))}=frac{1}{1+left(frac{a+b}{1-ab}right)^2}\
&=&frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}.
end{eqnarray}
It follows that
$$
cos^2(f(x))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}=0,
$$
i.e. $f(x)=pmfracpi2$. Since $f$ is continuous on $(-infty,0)$ and on $(0,infty)$, we deduce that
$$
f(x)=f(-1)=2arctan(-1)=-fracpi2 quad forall x<0,
$$
and
$$
f(x)=-f(-x)=fracpi2 quad forall x>0
$$
Added
The function $f: xmapsto f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(x^{-1})$ defined and differentiable of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$. For every $xne 0$ we have
$$
f'(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}+dfrac{-x^{-2}}{1+x^{-2}}=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}-dfrac{1}{x^2+1}=0
$$
Therefore, $f$ is constant on each connected component of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$.
Since
$$
f(1)=2arctan(1)=2dfrac{pi}{4}=dfrac{pi}{2},quad f(-1)=-f(1)=-dfrac{pi}{2},
$$
it follows that
$$
arctan(x)+arctanleft(dfrac{1}{x}right)=begin{cases}-dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x<0\
dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x>0
end{cases}.
$$
You can't compute $tantheta$ when $theta=pmfracpi2$, but you can compute $costheta$ instead.
For $a,bin mathbb{R}$ with $abne 1$ we have
begin{eqnarray}
cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))&=&frac{1}{1+tan^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))}=frac{1}{1+left(frac{a+b}{1-ab}right)^2}\
&=&frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}.
end{eqnarray}
It follows that
$$
cos^2(f(x))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}cos^2(arctan(a)+arctan(b))=lim_{ato x,bto x^{-1}}frac{(1-ab)^2}{(1-ab)^2+(ab)^2}=0,
$$
i.e. $f(x)=pmfracpi2$. Since $f$ is continuous on $(-infty,0)$ and on $(0,infty)$, we deduce that
$$
f(x)=f(-1)=2arctan(-1)=-fracpi2 quad forall x<0,
$$
and
$$
f(x)=-f(-x)=fracpi2 quad forall x>0
$$
Added
The function $f: xmapsto f(x)=arctan(x)+arctan(x^{-1})$ defined and differentiable of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$. For every $xne 0$ we have
$$
f'(x)=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}+dfrac{-x^{-2}}{1+x^{-2}}=dfrac{1}{1+x^2}-dfrac{1}{x^2+1}=0
$$
Therefore, $f$ is constant on each connected component of $mathbb{R}setminus{0}$.
Since
$$
f(1)=2arctan(1)=2dfrac{pi}{4}=dfrac{pi}{2},quad f(-1)=-f(1)=-dfrac{pi}{2},
$$
it follows that
$$
arctan(x)+arctanleft(dfrac{1}{x}right)=begin{cases}-dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x<0\
dfrac{pi}{2} &text{ if } x>0
end{cases}.
$$
edited Feb 17 '17 at 5:56
answered Sep 18 '15 at 21:15
Mercy King
13.9k11327
13.9k11327
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I just figured I'd throw this in.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Then $f'(x) = dfrac{1}{1+x^2} - dfrac{dfrac{1}{x^2}}{1 + dfrac{1}{x^2}} = 0$.
Hence $f(x)$ is constant on $(0, infty)$.
Since $f(1) = dfrac{pi}{4} + dfrac{pi}{4} = dfrac{pi}{2}$,
we conclude that
$f(x) = dfrac{pi}{2}$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Addendum
If you're not ready for calculus, for the same
$x in (0, infty)$,
Consider the point
$P = (1, x)$, in the first quadrant, with corresponding angle
$0 lt theta lt dfrac{pi}{2}$.
Let $hat{theta} = dfrac{pi}{2} - theta$.
Then, also, $0 lt hat{theta} lt dfrac{pi}{2}$ and
$tan(hat theta)
= tan left( dfrac{pi}{2} - theta right)
= cot theta = dfrac 1x$
It follows that
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x
= theta + hat theta
= dfrac{pi}{2}$
For all $x in (-infty, 0)$, we have
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x =
-left(arctan(-x) + arctan left(-dfrac 1x right) right) =
-f(-x) = -dfrac{pi}{2}$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I just figured I'd throw this in.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Then $f'(x) = dfrac{1}{1+x^2} - dfrac{dfrac{1}{x^2}}{1 + dfrac{1}{x^2}} = 0$.
Hence $f(x)$ is constant on $(0, infty)$.
Since $f(1) = dfrac{pi}{4} + dfrac{pi}{4} = dfrac{pi}{2}$,
we conclude that
$f(x) = dfrac{pi}{2}$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Addendum
If you're not ready for calculus, for the same
$x in (0, infty)$,
Consider the point
$P = (1, x)$, in the first quadrant, with corresponding angle
$0 lt theta lt dfrac{pi}{2}$.
Let $hat{theta} = dfrac{pi}{2} - theta$.
Then, also, $0 lt hat{theta} lt dfrac{pi}{2}$ and
$tan(hat theta)
= tan left( dfrac{pi}{2} - theta right)
= cot theta = dfrac 1x$
It follows that
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x
= theta + hat theta
= dfrac{pi}{2}$
For all $x in (-infty, 0)$, we have
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x =
-left(arctan(-x) + arctan left(-dfrac 1x right) right) =
-f(-x) = -dfrac{pi}{2}$.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I just figured I'd throw this in.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Then $f'(x) = dfrac{1}{1+x^2} - dfrac{dfrac{1}{x^2}}{1 + dfrac{1}{x^2}} = 0$.
Hence $f(x)$ is constant on $(0, infty)$.
Since $f(1) = dfrac{pi}{4} + dfrac{pi}{4} = dfrac{pi}{2}$,
we conclude that
$f(x) = dfrac{pi}{2}$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Addendum
If you're not ready for calculus, for the same
$x in (0, infty)$,
Consider the point
$P = (1, x)$, in the first quadrant, with corresponding angle
$0 lt theta lt dfrac{pi}{2}$.
Let $hat{theta} = dfrac{pi}{2} - theta$.
Then, also, $0 lt hat{theta} lt dfrac{pi}{2}$ and
$tan(hat theta)
= tan left( dfrac{pi}{2} - theta right)
= cot theta = dfrac 1x$
It follows that
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x
= theta + hat theta
= dfrac{pi}{2}$
For all $x in (-infty, 0)$, we have
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x =
-left(arctan(-x) + arctan left(-dfrac 1x right) right) =
-f(-x) = -dfrac{pi}{2}$.
I just figured I'd throw this in.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Then $f'(x) = dfrac{1}{1+x^2} - dfrac{dfrac{1}{x^2}}{1 + dfrac{1}{x^2}} = 0$.
Hence $f(x)$ is constant on $(0, infty)$.
Since $f(1) = dfrac{pi}{4} + dfrac{pi}{4} = dfrac{pi}{2}$,
we conclude that
$f(x) = dfrac{pi}{2}$ for all $x in (0, infty)$.
Addendum
If you're not ready for calculus, for the same
$x in (0, infty)$,
Consider the point
$P = (1, x)$, in the first quadrant, with corresponding angle
$0 lt theta lt dfrac{pi}{2}$.
Let $hat{theta} = dfrac{pi}{2} - theta$.
Then, also, $0 lt hat{theta} lt dfrac{pi}{2}$ and
$tan(hat theta)
= tan left( dfrac{pi}{2} - theta right)
= cot theta = dfrac 1x$
It follows that
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x
= theta + hat theta
= dfrac{pi}{2}$
For all $x in (-infty, 0)$, we have
$arctan x + arctan dfrac 1x =
-left(arctan(-x) + arctan left(-dfrac 1x right) right) =
-f(-x) = -dfrac{pi}{2}$.
edited Sep 19 '15 at 1:49
answered Sep 19 '15 at 0:55
steven gregory
17.6k22257
17.6k22257
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Your logic is entirely correct.
The functions $tan^{-1} x $ and $tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ are both odd functions. Accordingly their additive $tan^{-1} x + tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ must be odd with $ + pi/2 $ value for positive arguments and $ - pi/2 $ value for negative arguments.
This function results by subtracting $ pi/2$ from the step function 0 to $pi$ jump at x = 0 and so making it an odd function of opposite sign for arguments of opposite sign, defining the $ f(x) $ to be $pi/2 $ for $ x>0, 0$ for $ x=0 $ and $ - pi/2 $ for $ x<0. $
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Your logic is entirely correct.
The functions $tan^{-1} x $ and $tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ are both odd functions. Accordingly their additive $tan^{-1} x + tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ must be odd with $ + pi/2 $ value for positive arguments and $ - pi/2 $ value for negative arguments.
This function results by subtracting $ pi/2$ from the step function 0 to $pi$ jump at x = 0 and so making it an odd function of opposite sign for arguments of opposite sign, defining the $ f(x) $ to be $pi/2 $ for $ x>0, 0$ for $ x=0 $ and $ - pi/2 $ for $ x<0. $
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Your logic is entirely correct.
The functions $tan^{-1} x $ and $tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ are both odd functions. Accordingly their additive $tan^{-1} x + tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ must be odd with $ + pi/2 $ value for positive arguments and $ - pi/2 $ value for negative arguments.
This function results by subtracting $ pi/2$ from the step function 0 to $pi$ jump at x = 0 and so making it an odd function of opposite sign for arguments of opposite sign, defining the $ f(x) $ to be $pi/2 $ for $ x>0, 0$ for $ x=0 $ and $ - pi/2 $ for $ x<0. $
Your logic is entirely correct.
The functions $tan^{-1} x $ and $tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ are both odd functions. Accordingly their additive $tan^{-1} x + tan^{-1} (1/x ) $ must be odd with $ + pi/2 $ value for positive arguments and $ - pi/2 $ value for negative arguments.
This function results by subtracting $ pi/2$ from the step function 0 to $pi$ jump at x = 0 and so making it an odd function of opposite sign for arguments of opposite sign, defining the $ f(x) $ to be $pi/2 $ for $ x>0, 0$ for $ x=0 $ and $ - pi/2 $ for $ x<0. $
edited Feb 16 '17 at 21:37
answered Sep 19 '15 at 2:48
Narasimham
20.4k52158
20.4k52158
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An alternative proof using calculus.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all real $x$ except $0$.
$$frac {df(x)} {dx}= frac{1}{x^2+1} + frac {1}{1+1/x^2}*frac{-1}{x^2} = frac{1}{x^2+1} - frac{1}{x^2+1} = 0 $$
Integrating on both sides we get
$$f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = C,$$ where $C$ is a constant.
Since the function is discontinuous at $x=0$ the constant value can be different on both sides.
It can be obtained for $x>0$ by for example setting $x=1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(1) + arctan(1) = pi/4 + pi/4 = pi/2 $$
Similarly, for $x=-1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(-1) + arctan(-1) = -pi/4 -pi/4 = -pi/2 $$
So, in conclusion, $$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = pi/2 $$ for $x>0$
and
$$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = -pi/2 $$ for $x<0$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
An alternative proof using calculus.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all real $x$ except $0$.
$$frac {df(x)} {dx}= frac{1}{x^2+1} + frac {1}{1+1/x^2}*frac{-1}{x^2} = frac{1}{x^2+1} - frac{1}{x^2+1} = 0 $$
Integrating on both sides we get
$$f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = C,$$ where $C$ is a constant.
Since the function is discontinuous at $x=0$ the constant value can be different on both sides.
It can be obtained for $x>0$ by for example setting $x=1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(1) + arctan(1) = pi/4 + pi/4 = pi/2 $$
Similarly, for $x=-1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(-1) + arctan(-1) = -pi/4 -pi/4 = -pi/2 $$
So, in conclusion, $$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = pi/2 $$ for $x>0$
and
$$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = -pi/2 $$ for $x<0$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
An alternative proof using calculus.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all real $x$ except $0$.
$$frac {df(x)} {dx}= frac{1}{x^2+1} + frac {1}{1+1/x^2}*frac{-1}{x^2} = frac{1}{x^2+1} - frac{1}{x^2+1} = 0 $$
Integrating on both sides we get
$$f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = C,$$ where $C$ is a constant.
Since the function is discontinuous at $x=0$ the constant value can be different on both sides.
It can be obtained for $x>0$ by for example setting $x=1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(1) + arctan(1) = pi/4 + pi/4 = pi/2 $$
Similarly, for $x=-1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(-1) + arctan(-1) = -pi/4 -pi/4 = -pi/2 $$
So, in conclusion, $$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = pi/2 $$ for $x>0$
and
$$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = -pi/2 $$ for $x<0$.
An alternative proof using calculus.
Let $f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x)$ for all real $x$ except $0$.
$$frac {df(x)} {dx}= frac{1}{x^2+1} + frac {1}{1+1/x^2}*frac{-1}{x^2} = frac{1}{x^2+1} - frac{1}{x^2+1} = 0 $$
Integrating on both sides we get
$$f(x) = arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = C,$$ where $C$ is a constant.
Since the function is discontinuous at $x=0$ the constant value can be different on both sides.
It can be obtained for $x>0$ by for example setting $x=1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(1) + arctan(1) = pi/4 + pi/4 = pi/2 $$
Similarly, for $x=-1$:
$$f(1) = arctan(-1) + arctan(-1) = -pi/4 -pi/4 = -pi/2 $$
So, in conclusion, $$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = pi/2 $$ for $x>0$
and
$$arctan(x) + arctan(1/x) = -pi/2 $$ for $x<0$.
edited Nov 14 at 21:36
Robert Howard
1,742722
1,742722
answered Nov 14 at 21:06
Adrian
11
11
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1430520%2fproving-that-arctanx-arctan1-x-pm-pi-2-could-this-line-of-reasoning-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Thumbs up from my side! Will be curious to see if someone can find a problem with this.
– Deepak Gupta
Sep 11 '15 at 6:04
7
Cute.You can re-phrase it to say "if tan f(x) exists then it equals (x+1/x)/0 ,therefore it doesn't exist,therefore |f(x)|= pi/2"
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:28
1
Reminder to Deepak Gupta .It's infty , not infinity in LaTeX.
– DanielWainfleet
Sep 11 '15 at 6:30
4
Looks good to me. The sequence of equations starting with $tan(f(x))$ assumes (at first) that $tan(f(x))$ is defined, then proves by contradiction that it is not. You could say "assume $tan(f(x))$ is defined" before those equations, but I don't think you really need to. The assumption is implied by the fact that you wrote an equation.
– David K
Sep 13 '15 at 16:28
4
I think there's a problem with the use of the formula related to $tan(x+y)$ because this formula is valid when everything is defined. I think it's better to infere $f(x)=pmfracpi2$ only by showing that $1-tanarctan xtanarctanfrac1x=0$.
– Mohsen Shahriari
Sep 13 '15 at 22:36