[om] Bad bugs in trig CD

[Bill Naylor]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Richard Fateman wrote:

> Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:16:07 -0800
> From: Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
> Reply-To: om at openmath.org
> To: om at openmath.org
> Subject: [om] Bad bugs in trig CD
>
> I noticed the other day that there was a bug in the
> definition of the trig functions (all of them)
> in that they refer to Abramowitz and Stegun, which
> has a bug. The graph in section 4.3 (9th edition)
> has the values for sin, cos, tan etc.  but the
> x-axis is marked in DEGREES not RADIANS.  Given
> that interpretation, a number of identities
> are incorrect :)
> RJF

I don't think that this is actually a bug (maybe an inconsistancy in
A & S), section 4.3 has specific subsections (viz. 4.3.1 - 4.3.6) which
are labelled 'Definitions',  and I take it that these are the definitions
that transc1 refers to.
I have to say that the diagram in question does seem to be a bit of a
weakness to A & S. It is inconsistant with the rest of
the text (though it does at least label the axis as degrees), It also
only reflects the real parts of the trig. functions. I have no access to
later versions of A & S, does anyone know whether it has been ammended in
these?

Bill
--
om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems