How does a calculator find sinx?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 25 тра 2024
  • Online Python IDE: www.online-python.com/
    My code: www.online-python.com/diwYZl2Luj
    Credit to @HowToBasic for the clips I used in the video. I figured he wouldn't mind me stealing just a few seconds... hopefully.
    Knowledge of the following topics are essential to understand this video:
    Basic trigonometry (obviously)
    Radians & Degrees
    Matrices
    Chapters:
    0:00 Explaination
    5:26 Programming

КОМЕНТАРІ • 201

  • @David_Box
    @David_Box 13 днів тому +491

    the most egregious programming tutorial ever

    • @daprince3559
      @daprince3559 13 днів тому +24

      horrendous, perchance

    • @Bolaside
      @Bolaside 13 днів тому

      @@daprince3559 you can't just say perchance

    • @hallrules
      @hallrules 13 днів тому

      @@daprince3559 you cant just say perchance

    • @ianweckhorst3200
      @ianweckhorst3200 13 днів тому +12

      It has befouled us

    • @harley_2305
      @harley_2305 13 днів тому

      @@daprince3559you can’t just say perchance

  • @LethalChicken77
    @LethalChicken77 11 днів тому +135

    My favorite part is how it still uses a trig function

    • @janpaul74
      @janpaul74 10 днів тому +11

      indeed, how do we get rid of the atan for f**k sake? ;-)

    • @Tof0986
      @Tof0986 10 днів тому +19

      @@janpaul74 Thought the same first, then concluded that these are arctan of always the same values, then it can be hardcoded, I guess.

    • @Tovarris
      @Tovarris 9 днів тому

      @@janpaul74 You can use taylor series to approximate trig functions as a polynomial. For example cosx = 1 - (x^2)/2! + (x^4)/4! - (x^6)/6! + ... Look up taylor series for more info. I believe they are used to approximate trig functions and also other tricky functions like e^x as well. It is also how exact values of these functions were found before calculators.

    • @dariosucevac7623
      @dariosucevac7623 6 днів тому +1

      @@janpaul74 i think they use Taylor series for a close aproximation

    • @firstduckofwellington6889
      @firstduckofwellington6889 23 години тому

      @@dariosucevac7623 Nah, the Taylor series is too inefficient.
      Check out the CORDIC algorithm
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORDIC

  • @communismwizard8198
    @communismwizard8198 13 днів тому +261

    Funnily enough, I wasn’t too hurt when you used curly braces instead of a colon. It’s a common mistake, sometimes it gets hard switching between languages very often.
    I was hurt when you called that symbol a “hashtag”

    • @Momie_et_Masque
      @Momie_et_Masque 13 днів тому +70

      I didn't even notice he used curly braces but I was hurt when he used special characters in variable names instead of spelling them (phi, theta) or even using representative names.

    • @ianweckhorst3200
      @ianweckhorst3200 13 днів тому +4

      Also, he could’ve easily saved the import and just used 1/(2**n), for someone teaching us about math, he sure doesn’t know basic math facts

    • @ianweckhorst3200
      @ianweckhorst3200 13 днів тому +2

      Although he probably did need atan from math, but the question here is uh, how would one calculate that by hand, it’s clearly needed for the formula, and while there is an integral formula, it’s still an integral, and integrals are pretty equal in their difficulty to calculate, plus, even once you’ve gotten past that difficulty, there’s even some square roots that even with a definite formula, the formula is quite difficult and time consuming when you’ve converted your numbers to binary, otherwise, it’s pretty close to impossible, and since the atan is part of an approximation, and you have to stack two approximations which grow harder exponentially the more you stack them, and you’ve got a recipe for a horrible or likely impossible time getting it, if there was some solution he gave to that, let me know

    • @LichtMarv
      @LichtMarv 13 днів тому +4

      he literally said it in the video, you can just use a lookup table for the values of n. since n is just a counter and therefore a natural number, you can just cover all the cases of n in one lookup table, no need to implement an atan function yourself.

    • @SpringySpring04
      @SpringySpring04 13 днів тому +2

      Curly braces are just so much nicer to look at tho. (Yes I hate python)

  • @aria.z124
    @aria.z124 13 днів тому +153

    you are the howtobasic of mathematics. lol

  • @HenryStrattonFW
    @HenryStrattonFW 13 днів тому +23

    This is all well and good. But to any future programmers watching this, please do not use weird Unicode math characters in your code, just use the names of things, like phi, theta, delta, using these symbols will drive anyone that isn’t a heavy math user mad when trying to read your code.

  • @mrshmister173
    @mrshmister173 12 днів тому +39

    Finally, a channel does a better explanation of the Cordic algorithm than just "rotating the vector" to approximate a trig function, When rotations require trig functions. Brilliant video.

  • @hafixion
    @hafixion 13 днів тому +56

    Hey there, awesome video, but I did just want to give a pointer. Using a variable called d next to x, y, or phi is generally considered an abuse of notation since it looks closer to an infinitesimal rather than actual variable.

  • @r75shell
    @r75shell 13 днів тому +28

    1) I think even if it's what algorithm is really used, there are some fine details about things regarding precision. Because if it shows 6 decimal places, then all of them should be correct. But error in cycle accumulates
    2) Your code won't work for angles > 4pi
    3) Question in the beginning was how do you calculate those without calculator. But then you pull out from somewhere: some constant which is limit of product (which is also you need to calculate without calculator), and table of 50 arctan, which you also need to calculate.
    I think more plausible way to calculate sin/cos without calculator to use angle halving formulas, and rotate by pi/2, pi/4, pi/8, pi/16 and so on.

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому +3

      The algorithm is called CORDIC, apparently each iteration gives 1 more decimal place of accuracy

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому +1

      You can read about it on Wikipedia, under modes of operation, it shows that the part inside the product can be written in the form 1/sqrt(1+2^-n) which is much more manageable to compute.

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому

      Of course because of the symmetry of sine, you only need to calculate a domain of (0, π/2)

    • @r75shell
      @r75shell 12 днів тому

      @@BryanLu0 it won't give you correct 6 decimal places if each term of summation will be calculated up to 6th decimal places.

  • @kamilrichert8446
    @kamilrichert8446 13 днів тому +50

    If someone doesn't want to use pow function, the powers of 2 can be achieved by taking 1 and shifting it a few bits (remembering that 2^(-n) is the same as 1/2^(n))

    • @kakuserankua
      @kakuserankua 13 днів тому +10

      That works when multiplying by two because the result is an integer, but dividing one by two results in a floating point number which don't quite lend themselves to the same bitwise shift operation. You can, however, keep 2^n in an integer variable (starting as 1) and for every iteration shift to the left once (which multiplies it by 2), then divide 1 by the result.
      Also, Python does have an exponentiation operator (double asterisks) and a built-in pow() function not part of the math library. Both would eliminate the need to use the math library (we still need it for arctan however).

    • @IRedBerryI
      @IRedBerryI 13 днів тому +1

      @@kakuserankua was gonna say, why not use 2**n?

    • @declanmoore
      @declanmoore 13 днів тому

      @@kakuserankuaif you really want you can subtract n from the exponent to divide by 2^n for floats :)

    • @luigidabro
      @luigidabro 12 днів тому

      You try do that on a float.

    • @kamilrichert8446
      @kamilrichert8446 12 днів тому

      @@luigidabro that's why I said "remembering that 2(-n) is the same as 1/2^(n)". You can get a float by dividing by an integer

  • @trwn87
    @trwn87 13 днів тому +4

    Instant subscription. Perfect intro into math amd coding combined for oeople unfamiliar with it. Keep it up!

  • @kingbeauregard
    @kingbeauregard 12 днів тому +6

    Didn't understand this, will have to watch again later. But when it comes to approximating sin and cos, I find that this is a good plan:
    1) Add or subtract multiples of 2*pi until you're in the range -pi to pi.
    2) Map the angle to the first quadrant and remember what that will do to the sign of the final result.
    3) If you're dong the sin or cos of an angle greater than pi/4, do the cos or sin of the complementary angle.
    With those three steps, we've guaranteed that our angle is no more than 0.785 radians. We can Taylor series it and get a good approximation within just a few terms. But we can take it even further:
    4) Pre-calculate some sines and cosines of angles like pi/4, pi/8, etc. Save them as constants to whatever arbitrary degree of precision you like.
    5) Remember your trig identities, like sin(a+b) = sina*cosb + coa*sinb, and cos(a+b) = cosa*cosb - sina*sinb. With those in mind, suppose you want to calculate sin(3*pi/16). Well, that's sin(pi/8 + pi/16), and if you've precalculated sin(pi/8), then you just have to calculate sin(pi/16) and cos(pi/16) and do the trig identities. And since pi/16 is a little under 0.2, the calculations for sin(pi/16) and cos(pi/16) will converge very quickly.

    • @IsYitzach
      @IsYitzach 12 днів тому +2

      I would have done something similar myself. I don't know if I would have invoked the trig identities, but I would have considered it.

  • @MelonLord8
    @MelonLord8 15 днів тому +78

    Excellent video mate! However, wouldnt a taylor series be easier for a calculator to deal with?

    • @9remi
      @9remi 15 днів тому +4

      yes..

    • @TheUnqualifiedTutor
      @TheUnqualifiedTutor  14 днів тому +91

      A Taylor series is easier for a human because the equation is shorter. However computers/calculators work in a binary number system (base 2). So the multiplication by powers of 2 is very easy for a computer because it just requires all the digits to be shifted (like how multiplication by powers of 10 is done by shifting the digits in our natural base 10 system.) This is why we used the 2^-n in the equations as this is easy to calculate for computers, maybe I should have included this in the video. Thanks

    • @sepdronseptadron
      @sepdronseptadron 13 днів тому +25

      ​@@TheUnqualifiedTutor Slight correction/addition,
      Since we're dealing with floats, we don't shift the digits (as in bit shifting)
      floats are represented in the form of sign*mantissa*2^exp (a bit simplified, look up IEEE 754 for the whole thing)
      so when we calculate 2^-n, we just subtract n from the exp part
      shifting the bits only works for integers

    • @angeldude101
      @angeldude101 13 днів тому +1

      ​@@sepdronseptadron As far as I'm concerned, adding and subtracting from the exponent field is basically the same operation as shifting. The only real difference is that for floats it doesn't have the modular behavior that integers have. If you're writing a typical decimal number, you can multiply by 10 by writing a zero, or if you're using scientific notation you can do the same by adding 1 to the exponent.
      There's a C function called "ldexp" which is basically a shift for floating point numbers, taking an integer and adding it to the float's exponent field. If there was any flat operation to overload the shift operators to, it would be ldexp.

    • @user-hy8ju1yn5g
      @user-hy8ju1yn5g 12 днів тому

      ​@@angeldude101shifting bits is multiplying/dividing by powers of 2, to add/subtract you can't shift bits in a general case scenario

  • @cheezey3295
    @cheezey3295 13 днів тому +27

    this guys gonna be huge in the future

  • @simonwillover4175
    @simonwillover4175 13 днів тому +3

    8:08 the ** operator also works. i.e: 2**(-n)

  • @JohnDlugosz
    @JohnDlugosz 9 днів тому +2

    From the thumbnail, I thought it would be how modern calculators give symbolic answers for special cases when it recognizes them.
    IAC, what you described is called the CORDIC algorithm. It needs one iteration per bit of the answer, so 55 iterations seems right as that matches the mantissa of a double precision floating point value.
    CORDIC _can_ be implemented using only addition, subtraction, bit shifts, and table lookups -- no multiplication or division. Your code doesn't exploit this, and in fact uses division gratuitously. (division being horribly slow even on modern CPUs). This makes it the preferred algorithm for low-end calculators that use 8-bit microcontrollers.
    For a more capable CPU, the Taylor series takes fewer iterations and will need fewer as the angle is smaller.

  • @auztenz
    @auztenz 13 днів тому +19

    Wow this vedio is very underrated. Excellent subscribed

  • @LemonCake101
    @LemonCake101 13 днів тому

    Amazing video, I wish you the best your future efforts, and I can only hope you keep this quality up!

  • @sometwo7429
    @sometwo7429 13 днів тому +6

    Damn, i didnt know howtobasic was a mathematician 💀

  • @il_panda1979
    @il_panda1979 2 дні тому

    thanks a lot. this has been a question at the back of my mind for a lot of time

  • @joshuao4928
    @joshuao4928 12 днів тому +1

    Cool video! If you want to make those print statements a little easier to write and more readable, you can put an 'f' before the quotes and use curly brackets to avoid needing the str() functions. As in print(f"sin({θ}) = {y}")

  • @arduous222
    @arduous222 3 дні тому

    Something worth noting here is, you still need to calculate arctan(2^-n) somehow, which is also a trig function. However, given this is very close to 2^-n, you can simply remove arctan for larger order terms, and perhaps hard-code first few terms to further decrease error.

  • @steamnotstem9047
    @steamnotstem9047 5 днів тому

    being an actual python programmer, seeing the beginner tactics (like concatenation instead of functional strings or using Unicode characters as variables, or printing instead of returning) made me remind myself that beginners don't need to follow python conventions when their methods work. This was before I noticed you used curly brackets.
    (no hard feelings, great video)

  • @itz_mario.
    @itz_mario. 12 днів тому

    or simply use binomial expansion of trig functions, define the function, replace the x with the variable name in the function parameter, keep writing as many terms as you can then you will get almost identical results to real values

  • @Sudipto911
    @Sudipto911 13 днів тому +1

    Great video bruv! Just remember me when you have millions of subscribers😃

  • @berkberilbayraktar8301
    @berkberilbayraktar8301 12 днів тому

    this channel is a gem how i just saw this

  • @wetwillyis_1881
    @wetwillyis_1881 12 днів тому +4

    Imagine if a business major sees this. I think they’ll explode. Math majors may be sad, depressed, lonely, and overworked, but at least we can understand shit like this!

  • @yogoc3432
    @yogoc3432 13 днів тому +22

    Pretty cool! Though if we don’t have functions for sine and cosine, shouldn’t we also not have functions for arctangent? Or is this actually the way computers calculate it?

    • @cody8743
      @cody8743 13 днів тому +2

      i have no experience, but they are all the same so you can probably just precalculate and store them

    • @adw1z
      @adw1z 13 днів тому +8

      There are many different ways to approximate functions usually, some less computationally costly than others. For example, arctan(x) is the integral from 0 to x of 1/1+u^2 du, and there are so many ways to approximate integrals such as this. The way in which the function is computed depends on the type of computer/calculator you are using

    • @communismwizard8198
      @communismwizard8198 13 днів тому +4

      You’re only taking the arctan of a small set of numbers (negative powers of two), so yes recalculating and storing will work. Whereas for the final trig functions themselves, any number could be the input

    • @danix30001
      @danix30001 13 днів тому +4

      You could have a table of atan(2^-n) that is fixed for every calculation of the sin, cos and tan

  • @Faroshkas
    @Faroshkas 12 днів тому +1

    Hello, what app do you use for that blackboard? I thought it looked very cool.

  • @yigitrefikguzelses291
    @yigitrefikguzelses291 13 днів тому

    This was really a tutoriel that I watched with curiosity until the end. I liked both the math and computer part very much. My only question is, cos(arctan(1)).cos(arctan(2)).cos(arctan(3))... I think it is not appropriate to calculate it on the computer. Because we used trig again?
    Also i _think_ you can use Taylor Series of sinx , cosx, or tanx for example:
    sinx ~ x -x^3/3! + x^5/5! -x^7/7!

  • @jackkalver4644
    @jackkalver4644 13 днів тому

    In degrees, use angle bisection as approximation. In radians, use the power series.

  • @borbzaby
    @borbzaby 13 днів тому +1

    Nice video. I didn’t understand everything but it was pretty interesting 👍

  • @LaMirah
    @LaMirah 11 днів тому

    7:54 Python uses the same double-asterisk operator as FORTRAN for exponentiation, so 2ⁿ would be written as `2 ** n`. Math.pow() always returns floating point numbers as a result, whereas the double-star operator will return integer values when appropriate.

  • @markthompson2874
    @markthompson2874 13 днів тому

    I remember in the 70's my dad brought home a TI calculator that had trig functions. Being about 8, I had no idea what they mean but I thought it was interesting that the calculator would take a couple of seconds to handle these functions. I made it my goal in life to be able to use all the functions on a calculator (it also had log as well.) But always wondered why it took so long to calculate sin, now I know.

  • @mrtnsnp
    @mrtnsnp 12 днів тому

    I do get some weird values. π/4 stops after 2 iterations, but ends up at the really wrong value (0.6072529350088812 instead of 0.7071067811865475). And cos(0) is really wrong, after 1 iteration. For π/2 the sin and cos are fine, but understandably the tan value is a bit wonky.

  • @gky93
    @gky93 5 днів тому

    You can just use tailor series, it works well with small numbers

  • @MCPicoli
    @MCPicoli 10 днів тому +1

    How do you get rid of the atan() function in the code? We're not supposed to use trig functions here, unless there is a video explaining how to approximate atan() without other trig functions!

  • @TannerJ07
    @TannerJ07 5 днів тому

    I love the part where you used wolfram alpha to make you own trigonometric equation

  • @jacksc9855
    @jacksc9855 12 днів тому

    Acktually the sin is calculated using multiple techniques.
    Firstly, you only need to calculate the first quarent of the sin. Since other quarent can be calculate using trig.
    Secondly, look up table is used for common value like π/12, π/6, π/4, π/3, π/2 and more.
    Thirdly, values are close to 0 are return without calculation.
    Depend on how accurate the approximation need to be, cordic and Chebyshev polynomials can be use.

  • @GeorgiMomchilov
    @GeorgiMomchilov 12 днів тому

    The most underrated chanell on the platform

  • @beaverbuoy3011
    @beaverbuoy3011 13 днів тому +2

    Very nice!

  • @its_aidan
    @its_aidan 13 днів тому +1

    this is amazing

  • @drstrangelove09
    @drstrangelove09 12 днів тому

    I coded up CORDIC many years ago and was going to implement it in a FPGA but got bogged down with the floating point conversions.

  • @guush890
    @guush890 8 днів тому

    instead of math.pow, you can do 2**-n, no idea if it has the same time complexity tho

  • @rieder990
    @rieder990 12 днів тому

    Good video!

  • @BryanLu0
    @BryanLu0 12 днів тому

    4:51 I understand how the arctan values can be precomputed, but how do you calculate the cosine?

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому +1

      Ok, based on the Wikipedia article, the part inside the product can be written as, 1/sqrt(1+2^-n) which is much more manageable to calculate

  • @charlieborchardt2066
    @charlieborchardt2066 9 днів тому

    "But wait, that requires cos and sin."
    "Aaaarerggghg!!!!!!!!!" Got me dying. 💀 Eggs in a blender.

  • @xbia1
    @xbia1 12 днів тому +1

    Iteration isn't the fastest method and there's a chance that change never reaches zero because of finite precision. It's better to use a polynomial or rational function. See Computer Approximations by J.F. Hart et al.

  • @kavinbala8885
    @kavinbala8885 13 днів тому

    i thought it used a parabolic approximation for 0-pi/2. then reflected and rotated that as necessary

  • @mathematicalmachinery7934
    @mathematicalmachinery7934 12 днів тому

    8:03 that's not "to the power of", that's "xor". XOR is a weird binary thingy, if you want "to the power of", use ** instead of ^

  • @NStripleseven
    @NStripleseven 13 днів тому +1

    Why does the algorithm for finding trig functions need you calculate arctan? How does it do that?

    • @sowndolphin5386
      @sowndolphin5386 13 днів тому

      dont you use a knife to open another knife's box, or use the seed that an already-grown tree gives, to make another tree, dont question

    • @hallrules
      @hallrules 13 днів тому +1

      either a lookup table (precalculated arctan values by hand probably) or "i used the arctan to find the arctan"

  • @billr3053
    @billr3053 11 днів тому +1

    Better to pronounce the sign() function as SIGNUM. Not “sine” - because that would confuse it with sin().

  • @shang_psycho7414
    @shang_psycho7414 13 днів тому +1

    I’ve wanted to know this for a while

    • @user-zc5jz6bh2r
      @user-zc5jz6bh2r 13 днів тому +1

      sin(x) = (4x(180 - x)) / (40500 - x (180 - x))
      error margin: 0.0016
      maximum relative error is less than 1.8%
      Bhaskara I's sine approximation

  • @zhixinhuang4084
    @zhixinhuang4084 7 днів тому +1

    What will you do? A B C or D?
    A: You can always go to the park
    B: You can always get to work on time
    C: You can always make a PERFECT triangle
    D: You go to Paris every year
    E: you ALWAYS get what you want

  • @georgephilippe4028
    @georgephilippe4028 9 днів тому

    The whole point of the original CORDIC (published by Jack Volder in 1957ish) was to replace computationally heavy/expensive multiplication and division in old memory-poor computers with additions/subtractions and some table lookups. Logs were also possible.
    Though based on some obscure 17th Century mathematics it was still a damn impressive algorithm.
    The code here would not have worked efficiently on early computers and calculators. In fact, it would have defeated the whole point of the original CORDIC.
    Interesting, though.

  • @gamingdiamond352
    @gamingdiamond352 12 днів тому

    cool approximation of sin cos and tan, impressively interesting approach to programming it tho

  • @victorien3704
    @victorien3704 13 днів тому +1

    Video: How to make a trig function
    8:45 : Ok first you have to use a trig function

  • @jangelbrich7056
    @jangelbrich7056 10 днів тому

    And I thought for half a century that mathematicians and programmers have zero emotions ...

  • @jasonnong3305
    @jasonnong3305 День тому

    Fortunate that people were able to use wolfram alpha back in the day, despite not having a calculator

  • @valcubeto
    @valcubeto 9 днів тому

    When I saw the brackets I died

  • @dragoni_penguin
    @dragoni_penguin 12 днів тому

    imagine not waiting until deltamath was invented

  • @randospawn7495
    @randospawn7495 13 днів тому +2

    I noticed the brackets immediately and was very confused by it, I was like:
    Why didn't we just do this in c or somethin and why did he do that?

    • @TheUnqualifiedTutor
      @TheUnqualifiedTutor  13 днів тому

      You are eagle-eyed. I used python because its easier for beginners imo.

  • @Anife69
    @Anife69 8 днів тому

    peak cinema of math

  • @mariobabic9326
    @mariobabic9326 10 днів тому

    calculators actually have tables with all the sin values with the maximum precision they need. they dont directly calculate sin() because of perfomance

  • @loulounya
    @loulounya 13 днів тому

    How does the calculator display it in a form like √2 /2 or 3π/2?

    • @loulounya
      @loulounya 13 днів тому

      or even something like (1+√2)/2

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому

      It's precalculated for some known values

  • @diogoduarte4097
    @diogoduarte4097 13 днів тому

    I have subscribed

  • @GeomeTeamCraft
    @GeomeTeamCraft 13 днів тому +5

    Why are you so fucking funny lmao

  • @xniyana9956
    @xniyana9956 5 днів тому

    Interesting video but I don't like the fact that this algorithm uses a trig function to define other trig functions. I think it's sexier to derive trig functions from lower level math abstractions.

  • @AbdallahAhmed-qz6uu
    @AbdallahAhmed-qz6uu 7 днів тому

    can't you just use maclaurin's expansion for the first couple terms

  • @CesarGrossmann
    @CesarGrossmann 12 днів тому

    Legend says the CORDIC isn't used anymore.

  • @mr.dragon.purple9209
    @mr.dragon.purple9209 8 днів тому +1

    0:15 A

  • @dragoni_penguin
    @dragoni_penguin 12 днів тому

    now make an infinite precision pi calculator

  • @o_s-24
    @o_s-24 9 днів тому

    Why not use Taylor series approximations?

  • @raiden.b6163
    @raiden.b6163 13 днів тому +5

    Also me, who knows what sin 60 degrees is and also knows that 60 degree = 1.047 radian. so i just approx sin of 1 radian as sin of 60 degrees which gives me 0.86. I call that good enough and move on. ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ + 1 sub

  • @j7ndominica051
    @j7ndominica051 9 днів тому

    I had to stop watching a few minutes in because I couldn't focus afraid of a scene with wasted eggs and phone books sudddenly appearing.

  • @stormswindy3013
    @stormswindy3013 5 днів тому

    the frustrated AUURRGHHH 🥚

  • @notyourfox
    @notyourfox 13 днів тому +4

    ** works just fine with powers. So it is 2 ** -n, no need to use math.pow
    and please, respect PEP, it hurts my pythonic eyes lol
    and im gonna ignore the brackets
    for everything else the video is good, nice to understand the potential insides of trig functions

    • @TheUnqualifiedTutor
      @TheUnqualifiedTutor  13 днів тому

      Not gonna lie, had to look up what PEP meant lol. I'll try to apply it if I do another video with python. Thanks!

  • @alguem24
    @alguem24 12 днів тому

    I really liked the video but the python part made we want to bang my head

  • @user-lu9fg7pc9q
    @user-lu9fg7pc9q 10 днів тому

    11:00 this jump scared me slightly

  • @rifatbhuiyan2543
    @rifatbhuiyan2543 12 днів тому

    I thought calculators use Taylor's series. What's wrong with that?

  • @krishnachoubey8648
    @krishnachoubey8648 12 днів тому

    8:13 Could've just used the ** (double-star) operator.
    if you're worried about any performance issues.... IDGAF HE'S PROGRAMMING IN PYTHON FOR FUCK'S SAKE

  • @excelmaster2496
    @excelmaster2496 13 днів тому +3

    How does a calculate find atan(2^-n)?

    • @kebien6020
      @kebien6020 13 днів тому +6

      Since it only ever uses atan(1/2), atan(1/4), atan(1/8) up to atan(1/2^maxIterations), you can pre-calculate those and stick them into a lookup table

    • @hallrules
      @hallrules 13 днів тому +3

      @@kebien6020 wait how do u precalculate it

    • @spaghettiking653
      @spaghettiking653 13 днів тому

      Maybe Maclaurin expansion, then print all the values and write them into a big list

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому

      ​@@hallrulesarctan = integral 1/(x² + 1) dx
      The question is how do you then take the cosine?

  • @ze5os427
    @ze5os427 13 днів тому

    8:15 or you can use the ** operator

  • @aaab6054
    @aaab6054 12 днів тому +1

    Why use this approach over a Taylor / Maclaurin series?

    • @Tomyb15
      @Tomyb15 12 днів тому +1

      Faster convergence and probably more numerically stable.

    • @aaab6054
      @aaab6054 12 днів тому +1

      I've looked into it now and Taylor / Maclaurin series definitely converge faster(as I suspected), but the CORDIC algorithm he is using is faster for the CPU.

  • @user-vt7kt6ny3o
    @user-vt7kt6ny3o 13 днів тому

    ok but how to calculate the atan then?

    • @carultch
      @carultch 11 днів тому

      You can calculate arctan as an integral of 1/(x^2 + 1) dx. Use Simpson's rule to evaluate this integral, and it can find arctangent.

  • @Snurklll
    @Snurklll 13 днів тому +1

    I actually asked myself 2 days or so ago

  • @lox7182
    @lox7182 13 днів тому +1

    why do we need k? can't we just do y/sqrt(x^2+y^2) in the end?

    • @TheUnqualifiedTutor
      @TheUnqualifiedTutor  13 днів тому +1

      Yes, you probably could do. However, a computer/calculator should be as efficient as possible when trying to solve. I believe using a pre-calculated version of K at the start is more efficient.

  • @kelvenlim9283
    @kelvenlim9283 12 днів тому

    How to find sin of whatever? Use tan. But how do I find the tan of whatever?

  • @jonathandawson3091
    @jonathandawson3091 13 днів тому +3

    The humor isn't quite for me. It's jarring and frankly distracting.
    Also, why do you use arctan to generate sin? How will you compute it if it is not available, since one should presume it is an equally complicated function?
    If the answer is taylor expansion, what's wrong with using good old taylor expansion for sin / cost / tan in the first place?

    • @BryanLu0
      @BryanLu0 12 днів тому +1

      CORDIC is better for CPUs, as there is no multiplication needed

  • @astroorbis
    @astroorbis 8 днів тому

    no way you have less than 1k subs

  • @jaysonbunnell8097
    @jaysonbunnell8097 13 днів тому +1

    lol, maths video + programming + how to basic

  • @wetwillyis_1881
    @wetwillyis_1881 12 днів тому +1

    Imagine if Aliens come down and see us doing this, and just pull out a protractor and say “guys, why aren’t you just using these with scale models?”

  • @zian01000
    @zian01000 8 днів тому

    Then we need cosine.................
    Mom our neighbour is destrying his house again.

  • @Spebby
    @Spebby 13 днів тому

    Big egg fan

  • @omniyambot9876
    @omniyambot9876 13 днів тому +2

    my age old question lmao

  • @johnplays9654
    @johnplays9654 9 днів тому +1

    С) Taylor series

  • @megablademe4930
    @megablademe4930 7 годин тому

    I guess he used unicode characters for demonstation purposes, but please don’t. Use emojis instead.

  • @oxidine2968
    @oxidine2968 7 днів тому

    make one without re arctan

  • @jojo989GD
    @jojo989GD 9 днів тому

    everything good before the programming part

  • @mihaleben6051
    @mihaleben6051 6 днів тому

    No i need the equation immediatly. I dont need to understand the geometry, trust me bro.
    Just give me timestamp pls.
    And i need the formual for degrees, people who use radians should have their rooms filled with radium

  • @primenumberbuster404
    @primenumberbuster404 13 днів тому

    Bro is How to basic for math