You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Romashka comments on Stupid Questions February 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: Gondolinian 02 February 2015 12:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (198)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: solipsist 02 February 2015 06:18:37PM 5 points [-]

cosine seems more primitive than sine

It's a minor quibble. I think of cosine as the real part of e^ix, which is a very simple concept in my head. sine is the imaginary part of e^ix divided by i, which is slightly more complicated. If you had to relegate one to co- status, I'd choose sine.

Comment author: Error 03 February 2015 12:21:40AM 2 points [-]

Describing sine and cosine this way, instead of in terms of triangles, suddenly makes their behavior feel much more intuitive to me; on par with the way complex numbers in general suddenly made sense when someone here described multiplication by i as a rotation.

Thanks.

Comment author: gjm 03 February 2015 12:45:27AM 2 points [-]

More elementarily: cos x and sin x are the x and y coordinates of the point on the unit circle at an angle x anticlockwise from the positive x-axis. (I think this is the correct version of the "triangles" definitions.)

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 03 February 2015 10:54:32AM 1 point [-]

If you don't rotate, the cosine is still there; only the sine is zero. So, in some sense, cosine is more fundamental; it was there before the rotation.