4 ms·
In my example you would not actually write it out but instead have something like this. [sin(x) for x in sample] My point is that the trig functions are abstr
by throwawayffffas 4y ago
In my example you would not actually write it out but instead have something like this.
[sin(x) for x in sample]
My point is that the trig functions are abstract and useful in multiple domains and in most of these domains turns does not make sense. Turns only makes sense in geometry and maybe some physics but most of the time in these cases you might be better off working with other units, like say quaternions.
The fact is in the vast majority of literature trig functions take rads as arguments, it's the sane default for that reason alone.
- throwawayffffas 4y agoTo clarify my objection is with this statement > no one ever writes down numbers in the unit of radians, they already convert to half rotations or full rotations by scaling with pi That statement is true only if you are talking about geometry, If you are working in any other domain the trigonometric functions operate on real numbers and have nothing to with rotations or angles and if I call sin(1) I expect to get back 0.7847 not 0
- tsimionescu 4y agoStill, the discussion is only about convenience. For example, e^ix = cos x + i sin x (with sin/cos taking an argument in radians) would become e^ix = cos 2pi x + i sin 2pi x (with sin/cos taking an argument in turns). It's more cumbersome than the radian-based definitions, but it's not strictly different.
- halter73 4y agoAs mentioned elsewhere in this thread, with turn-based rotation units, this relationship can be simplified to avoid transcendental numbers entirely: > (-1)^(2x) = cos(x) + i sin(x)