31
$\begingroup$

I look for possiblity to define sin/cos through algebraic relations without involving power series, integrals, differential equation and geometric intuition.

Is it possible to define sin and cos through some axioms?

Like:

$$\sin 0 = 0, \cos 0 = 1$$ $$\sin \pi/2 = 1, \cos \pi/2 = 0$$ $$\sin^2 x + \cos^2 x = 1$$ $$\sin(x+2\pi n) = \sin x, \cos(x+2\pi n) = \cos x$$ $$\sin(-x)=-\sin x, \cos(-x) = \cos x \text{ for } x \in [-\pi;0]$$ $$\sin(x+y)=\sin x \cos y + \sin y \cos x$$

and able to prove trigonometric school equations?

What additions required to prove continuity and uniqueness of such functions and analysis properties like:

$$\lim_{x \to 0}\frac{\sin x}{x} = 0$$ or $$\sin ' x = \cos x$$ or $$\int \frac{dx}{\sqrt {1-x^2}} = \arcsin x$$

PS In Walter Rudin book "Principles of Mathematical analysis" sin and cos introduced through power series.

In Solomon Feferman book "The Number Systems: Foundations of Algebra and Analysis" I see system derived from integral definition.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ How would you define $\pi$? I mean, without geometry or trigonometric functions. $\endgroup$ – ajotatxe May 28 '15 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You might be interested in this. I plan on expanding on it to define $\sin$ and $\cos$ for real numbers. $\endgroup$ – GPerez May 28 '15 at 20:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I answer to myself: $\pi$ can be defined as $6\sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^\infty(1/n^2)}$. But trying to define exp, sin or cos from this deos not look nice... $\endgroup$ – ajotatxe May 28 '15 at 20:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Relevant $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 0:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There's this question, which gives a perfectly good definition. $\endgroup$ – Milo Brandt May 29 '15 at 1:40
36
$\begingroup$

To quote a previous answer of mine:

Robison, "A new approach to circular functions, π, and lim sin(x)/x", Math. Mag. 41.2 (March 1968), 66–70 [jstor].

In this paper it is shown that the addition law for cosine (and a couple other simple assumptions) uniquely determines cosine and sine.

(This is the paper I cite most often on StackExchange.)

If you don't have access to jstor (and don't want to sign up for their free 3-papers-at-a-time deal), you could try this other answer of mine to a closely related question about exponentiation, in which I adapted Robison's proof to give the following functional characterization of sine and cosine:

Proposition 1. Suppose $C,S\colon\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ satisfy these conditions:

  1. $C$ and $S$ are continuous;
  2. $C(u-v) = C(u)C(v)+S(u)S(v)$ for all $u,v\in\mathbb R$;
  3. $S(u-v) = S(u)C(v)-C(u)S(v)$ for all $u,v\in\mathbb R$;
  4. $C$ and $S$ are not both identically zero.

Then there exists $\lambda\in\mathbb R$ such that

$$ C(u) = \cos(\lambda u) \quad\text{and}\quad S(u) = \sin(\lambda u) \text{ .} $$

You'll note that I just took continuity as an axiom, which was convenient and natural in the context of that other question; Robison proves continuity from weaker but less intuitive axioms — if memory serves, the key one is that cosine has a smallest positive root, i.e., there exists $p>0$ such that $C(p)=0$ and $C(x)\ne0$ for $0 < x < p$ — which might serve your purposes better.

(Oh, and since there's some question about degrees and radians and all that: Robison takes the normalization $p=1$, proves that $\lim_{x\to 0}\frac{S(x)}{x}$ exists, then defines $\pi = 2\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{S(x)}{x}$, and then defines $\sin(x) = S(\frac{2x}{\pi})$, and similarly for $\cos$. This manoeuvre amounts to defining $\pi$ by the condition $\lim_{x\to 0}\frac{\sin x}{x} = 1$, very much like we sometimes define $e$ by the condition $\lim_{x\to 0}\frac{e^x-1}{x} = 1$.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I gave some more conditions that specify radians, if you like. (For some reason, I find inequalities more pleasing than limits. Perhaps because inequalities are more elementary of an idea.) $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 4:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I saw your answer. Nice observations. You might also be interested to know that $f(x) = e^x$ is the only function satisfying $f(x+y)=f(x)f(y)$ and $f(x)\ge x+1$. $\endgroup$ – user21467 May 29 '15 at 4:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $e^x\ge x+1$ is my favorite inequality, actually. It's surprisingly powerful — for example, it lets you prove that $\ln2=1-\frac12+\frac13-\dotsb$ without using calculus! (You need the squeeze theorem at the very end, though.) $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 4:30
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice answer! $\endgroup$ – Noah Schweber Jun 18 '15 at 16:53
14
$\begingroup$

From what you do not want that pretty much leaves functional equations.

There seems to be a system of two functional equations for sine and cosine: (link)

$$ \Theta(x+y)=\Theta(x)\Theta(y)-\Omega(x)\Omega(y) \\ \Omega(x+y)=\Theta(x)\Omega(y)+\Omega(x)\Theta(y) $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @ajotatxe Through power series? $\endgroup$ – Arthur May 28 '15 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ Via $f(x+y) = f(x) f(y)$ plus some extra condition $f(0) = 1$? Not sure if that is enough for complex argument. Hm. $\endgroup$ – mvw May 28 '15 at 20:06
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Since these formulas hold for angles measured in degrees or radians alike, could there still be some ambiguity? I.e., would this only allow us to know $\sin(kx)$ and $\cos(kx)$? $\endgroup$ – pjs36 May 28 '15 at 20:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The functions $\Theta(x)=0$ and $\Omega(x)=0$ also satisfy the equations. $\endgroup$ – PyRulez May 29 '15 at 0:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @PyRulez See StevenTaschuk's answer below, prop. 1 for the extra conditions. $\endgroup$ – mvw May 29 '15 at 0:32
5
$\begingroup$

A definition not involving power series, integrals, differential equations, or geometric intuition is:$$\cos x+\mathrm i\sin x=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(1+\frac{\mathrm ix}{n}\right)^{\!n}\quad(x\in\Bbb R).$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You can actually get that definition through geometric intuition. $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ @columbus8myhw: How? $\endgroup$ – cfh May 29 '15 at 8:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @cfh Basically, because $\sin\epsilon\approx\epsilon$ and $\cos\epsilon\approx1$ for small $\epsilon$, we have $1+\frac{ix}n\approx\cos\frac x n+\sin\frac x n$. Using De Moivre, we get $(1+\frac{ix}n)^n\approx\cos x+\sin x$, and the approximation becomes equality taking the limit. $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 10:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (First comment is "geometric" because this all has a nice geometric interpretation in the unit circle of the complex plane.) $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 10:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @cfh $\sin\epsilon\approx\epsilon$ is basically saying that a small arc is well approximated by a line. $\epsilon$ is the length of the arc, and $\sin\epsilon$ is its height. The arc is almost entirely vertical, so… $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 12:38
3
$\begingroup$

Other answers give equations that define sine and cosine without specifying the units. If you want radians, you'll want: \begin{align} \sin x<x<\tan x&&&x\in\left(0,\frac\pi2\right) \end{align} There are other equivalent ways to get radians, such as: \begin{align} \sin x&\le x^2+x&x&\in\mathbb R\\ \cos x&<\frac{\sin x}x<1&x&\in(-\pi,\pi)-\{0\} \end{align}


As for getting $\pi$, here's one I just remembered: Let's say you have formulae that define sine and cosine without units. Well, you don't even need the right units to define $\pi$!

Call our functions $\sin x^\circ$ and $\cos x^\circ$ (even though they might not be degrees — the $^\circ$ just means "some unit" here). Let the smallest positive root of $\cos x^\circ$ be called $r$.

Well, $\frac\pi4$ is the unique number such that: \begin{align} \cos x^\circ&>\frac\pi4\left(1-\frac{x^2}{r^2}\right)&x&\in\mathbb R \end{align} Link to a helpful graph to help you see what's going on. Try changing $r$; you'll see the inequality always holds. Try changing $p$; you'll see that this inequality uniquely defines $\pi$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Honestly, you're forced to use radians the minute you start thinking about trig inequalities. (Also: Did you know that the local maxima and minima of $\dfrac{\sin x}x$ are precisely at the intersections of the graphs of $\dfrac{\sin x}x$ and $\cos x$? Graph it. This only works for radians, again.) Similarly, the benefits of using $e^x$ for exponentials, with that weird base $e$, becomes apparent once you start dealing with inequalities. $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 1:15
  • $\begingroup$ Calculus is just inequalities disguised. The $\epsilon-\delta$ definition of a derivative is full of inequalities. $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger May 29 '15 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the appearance of $\pi/2$ in the inequalities is not necessary for the axiomatization (in case one considers $\pi$ to be assuming the consequent) - one can replace it with $1$ or any sufficiently small positive $x$. $\endgroup$ – Mario Carneiro Jun 2 '15 at 22:44
  • $\begingroup$ @MarioCarneiro Right, yes. $\endgroup$ – Akiva Weinberger Jun 3 '15 at 0:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.