## Why is the cosecant "co"?

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

### Why is the cosecant "co"?

While preparing for tomorrows lecture on trig functions, I was moved to ponder the following question:

Why is the cosecant "co"? In light of the definitions csc=1/sin, and sec=1/cos, it seems that it would have been more natural to rename the secant and cosecant in the opposite fashion. I was wondering if anyone here could illuminate on why this was not so (hopefully before a student asks me tomorrow morning).

Thoughts? I found nothing helpful on Wikipedia or Mathworld.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

LoopQuantumGravity
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:19 am UTC

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

skeptical scientist wrote:While preparing for tomorrows lecture on trig functions, I was moved to ponder the following question:

Why is the cosecant "co"? In light of the definitions csc=1/sin, and sec=1/cos, it seems that it would have been more natural to rename the secant and cosecant in the opposite fashion. I was wondering if anyone here could illuminate on why this was not so (hopefully before a student asks me tomorrow morning).

Thoughts? I found nothing helpful on Wikipedia or Mathworld.

Because it transforms like basis vectors and is covariant? (I've been writing lecture notes on tensors SR and E&M for people who don't know anything about tensors, SR, or E&M! )

I would imagine that it comes from the geometric picture somehow, rather than the algebraic one. How, I don't know, but it's something to think about.
I study theoretical physics & strings, and am a recipient of the prestigious Jayne Cobb Hero of Canton award.

And the science gets done and you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive!

Cosmologicon
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cambridge MA USA
Contact:

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

I think it's from the geometric definition, too, but I took the time to make a picture. Behold! The lengths in blue are sine, tangent, and secant, while the lengths in red are cosine, cotangent, and cosecant:
Attachments
cosecant.png (3.19 KiB) Viewed 5794 times

jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

@cosmologican: Your picture sucks. Behold the greatest diagram humanity shall ever know!

*cue dramatic music*
Attachments
trigo_functions.gif (6.68 KiB) Viewed 5778 times
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

I guess that could work, although I usually draw cos along the x-axis, and one could equally well draw sin along the y-axis, which puts them in the wrong part of the picture for their color.

But that's probably the reason, so thanks!

And I dislike both pictures for the same reason: theta looks like pi/4, so you get congruencies you wouldn't in general.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

Cosmologicon
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:47 am UTC
Location: Cambridge MA USA
Contact:

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

I think it's clearly less than pi/4 in my diagram. I originally had it smaller, but the cosecant wound up making the image really tall. So I made it as close to pi/4 as I could while still being obviously smaller: I also don't like it being some special angle.

@jestingrabbit: Hey, why so stingy with the labels? Why don't you give the points (0,1) and (1,0) a name too? That's clear things right up.

jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

Cosmologicon wrote:@jestingrabbit: Hey, why so stingy with the labels? Why don't you give the points (0,1) and (1,0) a name too? That's clear things right up.

This is a diagram in the Euclidean plane, not the Cartesian plane, that's why smarty-pants!!

Edit: Then why the hell is there a 0 there... DAMN!!!!!
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

Co functions are decreasing on (0,pi/2), non-co functions are increasing?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

mikegoo
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:14 am UTC

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

You could feed them some bull about making the pythagorean identities nicer...

sin2x +cos2x = 1
1 + cot2x = csc2x
tan2x +1 = sec2x
Notice how all the co's go together so nicely...

You could also spew forth about all of the basic derivatives of sec x, tan x, csc x, cot x being nicer since sec and tan have sec's and tan's...csc and cot have csc's and cot's.

Not to mention the fact that cos has an s and a c and so does sec...clearly it was meant to be!

Then you can laugh and claim you don't really know...the decision was made before they put you in charge and get a good laugh.

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

Good god - how did I miss this thread? My one chance to show off some of my random knowledge about the history of maths, and I almost blew it. Still, better late than never.

*ahem*

The reason that sec is not the 1/sin is because, contrary to what is assumed in the OP, sec was never originally defined as 1/cos. How it was defined can be best illustrated by a diagram I just made in Paint.

sinsectan.JPG (10.2 KiB) Viewed 5178 times

AB is the chord, so naturally it is called the sine*. CD is the tangent line, so it is of course called the tangent. And OD is a secant line (the extension of a chord outside the circle), so it is called the secant. Simple enough when drawn like that. And, of course, the sine, tangent and secant of the complimentary angle are called the complimentary sine, complementary tangent and complimentary secant respectively (or cos, cosec and cot for short).

The diagram given above is a reshifting of this, but the original meaning of the lengths has been lost in the haste to get all the functions in one quadrant.

* OK, it's not so its not at all natural, but it's an interesting linguistic progression. The Hindu word for "chord" is "jya". This was then morphed into Arabic as "jiba", which isn't actually an Arabic word. Because of this, and the fact Arabic is usually written without vowels, there was no reason to later interpret "jb" as "jiba" and then get the Hindu "jya" when it was being translated into Latin in the 12th century. Instead, it was read as "jaib", which means "bay". This was then translated into Latin as "sinus", and so we get the English word "sine". Fascinating, huh?
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.

Nimz
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:49 am UTC
Location: the origin

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

jestingrabbit wrote:
Cosmologicon wrote:@jestingrabbit: Hey, why so stingy with the labels? Why don't you give the points (0,1) and (1,0) a name too? That's clear things right up.

This is a diagram in the Euclidean plane, not the Cartesian plane, that's why smarty-pants!!

Edit: Then why the hell is there a 0 there... DAMN!!!!!

What's wrong with having an O there? You need a name for that point to name the line segments that have lengths sec θ and csc θ in your diagram.

Token's explanation is better, though, so you don't get the points you would have otherwise gotten from having the O.
LOWA

jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

Nimz wrote:What's wrong with having an O there? You need a name for that point to name the line segments that have lengths sec θ and csc θ in your diagram.

You don't need to label the lengths, but you do need to indicate that the 'axes' are crossing at right angles.

It probably seems like I'm disociating myself from the diagram, but I believe I lifted it from someone who lifted it from an MIT website.

Nimz wrote:Token's explanation is better, though, so you don't get the points you would have otherwise gotten from having the O.

Token's explanation is an actual explanation, rather than a diagram and a guess.

@Token: Incredible that the etymon of sine is jya! Good to know.

Edit: an even more content packed diagram, that's a little prettier too imo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circle-trig6.svg
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

I'm kind of out of my league on the math board, I know, but my understanding of this was aided by what my trig book labels as the cofunction identities.

In degrees, because division bars don't look good in type:

sin 90 - x = cos x
cos 90 - x = sin x
sec 90 - x = csc x
csc 90 - x = sec x
tan 90 - x = cot x
cot 90 - x = tan x

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofunction
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

NathanielJ
Posts: 882
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:04 pm UTC

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

I'm kind of out of my league on the math board, I know, but my understanding of this was aided by what my trig book labels as the cofunction identities.

In degrees, because division bars don't look good in type:

sin 90 - x = cos x
cos 90 - x = sin x
sec 90 - x = csc x
csc 90 - x = sec x
tan 90 - x = cot x
cot 90 - x = tan x

That doesn't explain the "co" thing though, because those equations all work exactly the same even if you were to define sec x as 1/sin x and csc x as 1/cos x.

I think token wins the thread.
Homepage: http://www.njohnston.ca
Conway's Game of Life: http://www.conwaylife.com

venkateshmrao
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 8:00 am UTC

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

'jya' is a Sanskrit word. It is used for a chord of a circle/arc and also in Vedic mathematics for the 'sine'. It is also the Sanskrit word for bow string - since it does form a chord of an arc (i.e the bow)
The cosec is called 'vyutkrama-jya' which means inverted jya.

Eebster the Great
Posts: 3420
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

Also, jaib means "breast," not "bay." The Latin translation sinus can mean either "breast" or "bay," but it was chosen as a translation of the former. Centuries later, mathematicians plotted the graph of y = sin x on Cartesian coordinates and noticed that it does kind of look like boobs.

DavCrav
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:04 pm UTC
Location: Oxford, UK

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

the 'co' stands for complementary. It's the sine/secant/tangent of the complementary angle (i.e., pi/2-angle).

Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

### Re: Why is the cosecant "co"?

Sir_Elderberry wrote:I'm kind of out of my league on the math board, I know, but my understanding of this was aided by what my trig book labels as the cofunction identities.

In degrees, because division bars don't look good in type:

sin 90 - x = cos x
cos 90 - x = sin x
sec 90 - x = csc x
csc 90 - x = sec x
tan 90 - x = cot x
cot 90 - x = tan x

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cofunction

Having co- prepended to the 1/sin version means you get:
tan(x) = sin(x)*sec(x)
cot(x) = cos(x)*csc(x)
All the co-s are together without the messiness of division bars. I hope the OP's lecture was delayed 11 years so this can be included.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry