3

I understand this problem is similar to the following question: How would a triangle for sin 90 degree look

However, I am confused on how sine 90 is defined based on the definition of sine: opposite/hypotenuse. There were two explanations I heard:

The first is that in a right triangle, the angle opposite the right angle is the same as the hypotenuse, so hypotenuse/hypotenuse=1. I used to be sure about this explanation, but then I heard that the opposite side or adjacent side cannot be the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Also, this does not seem to make sense in regards to a unit circle. In a unit circle, when finding the sine of an acute angle, the right angle is located opposite the origin: right triangle in unit circle when sine is an acute angle

In the unit circle, the angle in the right triangle whose sine is being measured is located at the origin, which means when measuring sin 90 in a right triangle in the unit circle, there will be two right angles in the triangle, correct? From what I know this is not possible, so the triangle will sort of collapse into a line.

right triangle in unit circle when sine 90

The unit circle explanation is that the opposite side gets larger and larger as the angle at the origin nears 90 degrees, while the adjacent side gets smaller and smaller, until the opposite side and the hypotenuse are the same (opposite side becomes equal to 1).

Essentially, the unit circle explanation seems easier to visualize, but is the first one still valid? The only reason I am asking this is because the first explanation seems to create a regular right triangle, but the second creates a triangle that is really just a line. Maybe this is a basic question and can be answered easily, but I am really confused on this. Hopefully the question makes sense, but if not, please let me know. Thanks.

  • @peek-a-boo Please do not use comments for posting answers. – Xander Henderson Feb 26 '25 at 21:30
  • 3
    @XanderHenderson it wasnt an answer. It does belong as a comment. That was my (admittedly indirect) way of getting the OP to think about why an initial geometric definition would even have any reasonable extension, so they could hopefully edit to clarify the root of their problem (i.e if it’s about rigour or motivation). Otherwise the “answer” to OP’s question in the first sentence of the final paragraph is simply “no it’s not a valid explanation because it’s not a right triangle anymore”. But clearly this isn’t a helpful answer. So I do wish you hadn’t deleted my comments. – peek-a-boo Feb 26 '25 at 21:42
  • The reason you divide by the hypotenuse is to scale the triangle down to fit on the unit circle. On the unit circle every point has a horizontal and vertical component. The horizontal is the cosine and the vertical is the sine. – CyclotomicField Feb 26 '25 at 21:45
  • I do not quite get what you mean by this. Are you saying hypotenuse/hypotenuse=1, and to make sure the triangle is still proportional to the original, the opposite and adjacent are divided by hypotenuse as well? – user386598 Feb 26 '25 at 21:50

4 Answers4

9

The short answer to the question in the title is that there is no such triangle, so there is no need to decide how to describe it "based on the definition of sine".

A slightly longer answer is that there are two common definitions of the sine function. The one that's "opposite over hypotenuse" works for honest right triangles. The other is "the $y$ coordinate of a point on the circle". They give the same answer when both are defined. The second but not the first allows 90 degrees as an input value. You can see geometrically that the value of 1 for the sine there is the limiting value as one of the non-right angles in a right triangle approaches a right angle.

Ethan Bolker
  • 103,433
5

I have heard more than one person say that the sine and cosine should be considered as functions on the circle rather than the triangle. What does that mean?

As all of us were taught, we start with a right triangle. Since the three angles of a triangle must sum to $180^{\circ}$ and one of the angles is $90^{\circ}$, it must be the case that each of the other angles is less than $90^{\circ}$ because neither can be $0^{\circ}$.

We consider one of the non-right angles. We define the adjacent and opposite sides and then the trig functions based on the six possible ratios of the sides. This is well defined because these ratios hold for all similar triangles, i.e. triangles whose angles are the same.

We then consider a point $(x,y)$ on a circle of radius $r$ in the first quadrant with $x$ and $y$ positive. We notice that the values $x$, $y$ and $r$ form the sides of a right triangle and, moreover, we conclude that $$\sin{\theta}=\frac{y}{r}\\ \cos{\theta}=\frac{x}{r}$$ with respect to the angle $\theta$ that the hypotenuse makes with the $x$ axis.

We then extend the definition of the trig functions to any $x$ and $y$ on the circle by defining $$\sin{\theta}=\frac{y}{r}\\ \cos{\theta}=\frac{x}{r}\\ \tan{\theta}=\frac{y}{x}$$ and the cosecant, secant and cotangent, respectively, as the corresponding reciprocals.

Since we can think about a point on the circle as traveling around the circle in any direction, we can generate the familiar sine and cosine functions that are defined on the entire real line.

In this sense, we are not dividing the hypotenuse by itself when we compute $\sin{90^{\circ}}$, we are dividing the $y$ coordinate of $(0,r)$ by the radius $r$. Since these values are the same, we get that the sine of $90^{\circ}$ is $1$.

John Douma
  • 12,640
  • 2
  • 26
  • 27
  • For me, it is difficult to go from understanding sine as a function of right triangles to viewing it as a function on a unit circle that can correspond to any angle. – user386598 Feb 27 '25 at 00:48
  • @user386598 It' a definition, not a derivation. We extend the definition of the sine function by going from ratios of sides of a triangle to ratios of $y$ and $r$ values of the circle. From the point of view of a right triangle, the angle must be greater than zero and less than ninety degrees. This definition defines the sine on all real numbers because each revolution of the circle can be $\pm 2\pi$. – John Douma Feb 27 '25 at 00:54
  • So essentially, the ratio of right triangles is only one component of the definition of sine, which includes any real number and is defined with coordinates? – user386598 Feb 27 '25 at 01:00
  • @user386598 Yes, and as you go on in mathematics, you will see that this is a common pattern. For example, in calculus, you will learn that the sine function can be represented as an infinite sum that adds up to a finite number for real numbers and complex numbers. It allows us to further define the sine function on the complex numbers. For example, you can find the sine of $\sqrt{-1}$. – John Douma Feb 27 '25 at 01:10
  • If this is the case, am I correct to assume we can only represent sine in right triangles outside of the unit circle because the opposite and adjacent sides correspond to the y and x coordinates in the unit circle, and since all right triangles with a given angle A are similar, they are always in the same proportion? – user386598 Feb 27 '25 at 04:02
  • @user386598 It's an extension of the definition. We start with the proportions of the sides of a right triangle. We then extend the definition to cover all points on a circle. When we define the sine on the circle, we not only define the sine of $90^{\circ}$, but the sine of angles greater than $180^{\circ}$. Though the original definition holds, we are beyond the realm of triangles. We can no longer think in terms of the mnemonic, sohcahtoa. – John Douma Feb 27 '25 at 04:22
1

Such a triangle doesn't exist, but you can regard it as a limit.

Let ABC be a right angled triangle with sides

$$|AB| = x,\quad |BC| = \epsilon,\quad |CA|=\sqrt{x^2+\epsilon^2}$$

Picture of a triangle with points ABC and legs x and epsilon.

Let $\gamma = \angle BCA$, then

$$\sin \gamma = \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+\epsilon^2}}$$

If we now make the side $|BC|$ smaller and smaller, we can take a look at the following limit, given $x>0$.

$$\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+\epsilon^2}} = \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2}} = 1$$

From what I know this is not possible, so the triangle will sort of collapse into a line.

So this is precisely what happens.

0

It is easier to explore the intersection point between one angle's side and the circle, than the triangle itself. When the angle is $\vartheta$, the x-value is the adjacent side and the y-value is the opposite one, but since the radius of the circle is 1, we can say $\sin\vartheta=\frac H{OS}=\frac y1=y$, and $\cos\vartheta=\frac H{AS}=\frac x1=x$, so the coordinates of this intersection are $(\cos \vartheta; \, \sin \vartheta)$.

When $\vartheta=\frac{\pi}{2} \,rad=90°$, the triangle becomes a line. Your trick technicaly works, but now it's a line, and we need a triangle, so... we can't do that. Instead, qe can see our point at $(0;1)$, and thanks to our discovery, we know it means $\cos 90=0$ and $\sin 90=1$