Open study

is now brainly

With Brainly you can:

  • Get homework help from millions of students and moderators
  • Learn how to solve problems with step-by-step explanations
  • Share your knowledge and earn points by helping other students
  • Learn anywhere, anytime with the Brainly app!

A community for students.

show that cot inverse (1) + cot inverse (2) + cot inverse (3) = pi/4 ?

IIT study group
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

To see the expert answer you'll need to create a free account at Brainly

I believe this is not actually true...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28inverse+cotangent+of+1%29+%2B+%28inverse+cotangent+of+2%29+%2B+%28inverse+cotangent+of+3%29
cotangent is the ratio of cosine to sine for an angle. Inverse cotangent means that for a specific ratio, the output will be the angle that has that ratio. \(cot^{-1}(1)\) will give us the angle for which cosine is equal to sine. This turns out to be pi/4 Add in \(cot^{-1}(2)\) and \(cot^{-1}(3)\) and clearly the angle won't be pi/4 anymore.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

arccot(x) = arctan(1/x) if x>0 so arctan(1) = arccot(1) = pi/4 the rest are positive so it cant be true arccot(2) = arctan(1/2) > 0 arccot(3) = arctan(1/3) > 0
yes looks like we wrote the same thing lol
Correct =)
This problem was almost certainly meant to say = pi/2

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question