Inverse tan calculations

or do I just simply,

if tan (1)= 0.017455064928217585765128895219728

then tan^-1 (1) = 0.0017455064928217585765128895219728

Nevermind, the answer isn't hard to find.

tan (1) = tan^-1 (tan (1))

I'm having one of those days.

this time,

its tan (a)=b

tan^-1 (b)=a

now thats the correct form

that was a long winded way of stating the bloody obvious. If anything is raised to the power of -1 it's the same as saying 1/that thing. So if you then want the inverse of that you are doing the same backwards.

Your original number was tan(1)=X

not tan^-1

see below Stirling Stan to reply 9 MACA , and guess also indicates to my incorrect question posed. I was having one of those days.

Tan^-1 of what?

I understand 'tan^-1' to mean 'the angle whose tangent is'.

Please correct me if I've got it wrong guys....

"Am I right to assume that tan^-1 = -0.017455064928217585765128895219728"

I think not so.

Tan^1 = 45 deg, = Pi/4 rad. = 0.785398164

This was carried to 9 signifigcant figures, which is in excess of most requirements.

Why the 33 decimal places?

Hi SS

it's just that I was lazy to reduce the number. I didn't really concern myself with the significant figures. tho I do know the rules.

the corrected form is posted in the third reply I believe... but just to make sure

Tan (a) = b

arctan (b)= a

thats the correct relationship

The Wiki link below has a pretty good nutshell on trig. Trig conventions involving powers are confusing sometimes because people new to the convention might think you are squaring the angle instead of it's trigonometric result. sin^2(90)=(1)^2, not sin(8100)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometry

sin^3(alpha)=(sin(alpha))^3

sin^-3(alpha)=(sin(alpha))^-3=1/(sin(alpha)^3

Hey thanks,

I found an arctan calc, and just used that. arc tan calc link

It would all be a lot clearer without those horrible hat (^) signs.

The super-script function in editor has it's uses, not that using tan^-1 instead of arctan is any nicer. 'arctan' should just be 'arctan' so as to avoid confusion with inverse functions. Heck it could go mad with (tan^-1(-1^-1))^-1 ! And no, the last bit isn't a &*%^** factorial sign ! My God, it could get repetitive.

It never occured to me to use them.

FYI - Several personal attacks have been deleted from this thread, a gentle reminder to all that this is a moderated forum.

Well done.....and thanks.

Once again Electro,

I don't know how I got started on the wrong foot, but I do think you know yourstuff!

I still think one should make windings, even if just for the experience.

"I still think one should make windings, even if just for the experience."

Anyone can get some real world experience in winding a Moeibus Coil or a Moebius Coil.

Video:

Mobius Coil, Crystal Orgon Orgonite

Instruction:

How to Wind Toroidal Mobius Coils

Hmm. This 'electro-macrami' type stuff is interesting. This link leads into all sorts of things.

I also had a look, I cannot see what all the fuss is about, what can you do with it?

Did you look at the YouTube (something) cloud buster!!! It was just a huge waste of time, copper pipe and resin......not to mention a plastic bucket!!!

and it also seems to do nothing...

Its a bit like area 51.......!

.....well the link I posted leads here. Darn that Kate Bush and her orgone inspired song. Making windings looks interesting enough, but spaceships does seem a turn too far.

I said the last time :- "Its a bit like area 51.......!"

...I see no reason to change my comment.

Please nobody should confuse the word "comment" with "compliment" though......!

That is not really what I personally want to see on CR4, but each to his own....

Sorry Guys.....

I was not aware of Mr. Laithwaite. Quite an accomplished fellow.

I was especially intrigued with his ideas concerning the 196 number and the possibility of non-Lychral numbers in general. I had never heard of these palindromic numbers until I followed your link. For those who choose not to follow it, and don't know what a Lychral number is, it is one which, when the digits of the number are reversed and then added to the original number they eventually become palindromic.

"The reverse and add process produces the sum of a number and the number formed by reversing the order of its digits. eg. 56 + 65 = 121, 125 + 521 = 646, etc."

It seems the number 196 has, so far, been found to be non-Lychral. As of May 1, 2006 the reverse and add process for 196 has produced a number with 300 million digits without becoming palindromic.

Why is it that this reminds me of Pi? Has Pi even been calculated to the number of digits as the 196 number? Either way, we can add this little tidbit to future discussions of seemingly limitless numbers of digits.

Thanks for enlightening me a little.