hidetzugu

holds only for the analytical definition of sin(), which has its argument in radians as oposed to which definition? we seem to be odds in our expectations: you expect "set angles degrees" to change the trignometic functions so that sin(x)->sinº(x), where sinº(x)=sin(x pi/180). I'm sorry if I'm mistaken (I'm a physicist, not a mathematician) but you did not manage to convince me this is correct (a quick google search shows that we are not the only ones having this argument). I would argue that, as...

holds only for the analytical definition of sin(), which has its argument in radians as oposed to which definition? we seem to be odds in our expectations: you expect "set angles degrees" to change the trignometic functions so that sin(x)->sinº(x), where sinº(x)=sin(x pi/180). I'm sorry if I'm mistaken (I'm a physicist, not a mathematician) but you did not manage to convince me this is correct (a quick google search shows that we are not the only ones having this argument). I would argue that, as...

holds only for the analytical definition of sin(), which has its argument in radians as oposed to which definition? we seem to be odds in our expectations: you expect "set angles degrees" to change the trignometic functions so that sin(x)->sinº(x), where sinº(x)=sin(x pi/180). I'm sorry if I'm mistaken (I'm a physicist, not a mathematician) but you did not manage to convince me this is correct (a quick google search shows that we are not the only ones having this argument). I would argue that, as...

functions not evaluated correctly if "angles degrees" is on

functions not evaluated correctly if "angles degrees" is on

to simplify the problem: plot [-pi:pi] sin(x)/x and set angles degrees plot [-180:180] sin(x)/x should both present the max at (0,1), while for the second case the max is at (0,~0.017)

to simplify the problem: plot [-pi:pi] sin(x)/x and set angles degrees plot [-180:80] sin(x)/x should both present the max at (0,1), while for the second case the max is at (0,~0.017)