Solving the equation by converting (cot2a) to (tan) gives No solution but when transposing cot 2a (and changing to tan) to other R.H.S yields two solutions?
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
@A Former Brilliant Member
–
The first one is mine and the second one is the Author's (RD Sharma's) solution. I didn't expect his solution to be incorrect( as he is an renowned mathematician) so I had this note.
@Calvin Lin
–
Since we don't know the range of x so we cannot state whether 2x is acute. If 2x is obtuse (90 +2x) lies on third quadrant and Cot 2x is +.
Edit : I agree that there is no solution but not with this solution.
@Vishal Yadav
–
Nope. x being acute has nothing to do with this. This statement is about translation and reflection of the tangent graph to obtain the cotangent graph. Alternatively, you could use unit circle trigonometry to prove the statement.
Yes, it is easier to prove it for the case when the value is actue. However, it is true for a wider set of values, namely R.
Look like you didn't read my other comment.
Basically, in the second solution, the values that you calculated are of the form 90∘,270∘,450∘,…. At these points, tanx=∞, which is why they are not really considered solutions.
Similary, in your first approach, when you multiplied by tanx, you forgot to account for when tanx=0,∞, as those could potentially introduce extraneous solutions to your equation.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Can you show your working so other others can see how you got 0 / 2 solutions?
Log in to reply
Sure.
tan(x)+cot(2x)=0tanx+2tanx1−tan2x=0tan2x+1=0tan2x=−1NoSolutiontanx=tan(90+2x)x=2nπ±90+2xx=(32nπ−30)orx=−(2nπ+90)
Log in to reply
First solution is correct i.e. no solution.
Your first step in the second solution is incorrect. Just because tan(90+x)=−cot(x) does not mean tan(90+2x)=−cot(2x).
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Can you list out what those values are?
What are the values of tanx?
Hence, what is the conclusion? What mistake was made?
tan(90∘+x)=−cotx⇔tan(90∘+2θ)=−cot2θ.
Log in to reply
x so we cannot state whether 2x is acute. If 2x is obtuse (90 +2x) lies on third quadrant and Cot 2x is +.
Since we don't know the range ofEdit : I agree that there is no solution but not with this solution.
Log in to reply
x being acute has nothing to do with this. This statement is about translation and reflection of the tangent graph to obtain the cotangent graph. Alternatively, you could use unit circle trigonometry to prove the statement.
Nope.Yes, it is easier to prove it for the case when the value is actue. However, it is true for a wider set of values, namely R.
Look like you didn't read my other comment.
Basically, in the second solution, the values that you calculated are of the form 90∘,270∘,450∘,…. At these points, tanx=∞, which is why they are not really considered solutions.
Similary, in your first approach, when you multiplied by tanx, you forgot to account for when tanx=0,∞, as those could potentially introduce extraneous solutions to your equation.
Log in to reply
If you notice, in the second solution, tan(x) isn't defined.