Cosine for x?
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Cosine for x?
I'm programming a math header in C++, making my own cos function.
I read that:
[math]cos x = 1  x^2 / 2! + x^4 / 4!  x^6 / 6! +...[/math]
Trying to code an infinite series is impossible.
I need an alternate way to do this. Any ideas?
I read that:
[math]cos x = 1  x^2 / 2! + x^4 / 4!  x^6 / 6! +...[/math]
Trying to code an infinite series is impossible.
I need an alternate way to do this. Any ideas?
Re: Cosine for x?
Figure out how precise you need your approximation to be, what kind of range x will fall in, and then just cut off the series at some point.
What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.
Re: Cosine for x?
Kaj wrote:Trying to code an infinite series is impossible.
Code: Select all
n=0
sum=0
while TRUE
sum = (sum + ((1)^n) * x^(2n))/((2n)!)
n++
end
Last edited by jmorgan3 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
This signature is Y2K compliant.
Last updated 6/29/108
Last updated 6/29/108
Re: Cosine for x?
That is a Taylor expansion. Wikipedia shall serve you well. Use one of the forms for the error term to estimate your errorI recommend the integral term.
SargeZT wrote:Oh dear no, I love penguins. They're my favorite animal ever besides cows.
The reason I would kill penguins would be, no one ever, ever fucking kills penguins.

 Posts: 25
 Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:37 am UTC
Re: Cosine for x?
Okay. I'm assuming you haven't had calculus before, and if you have, you haven't done alternating series errors yet.
Anyways, the alternating series theorem (I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong and it's something different) states that S  S_{n+1} > a_{n+1} for any converging alternating series, where S is the true sum of the series, S_{n} is the partial sum of the series through n terms, and a_{n} is the nth term of the series (which is always positive).
If you're looking for the cosine of some variable with N decimal places of accuracy, you're going to want your error (or the term S  S_{n+1}) to be less than N 0s and 5 (example: You want 3 decimal places of accuracy, so your error must be less than .0005)
So, with a little bit of substitution, you'll get: E > a_{n+1}. Then, the only work left to do is to find the first term that is less than your error.
If you're making your own math header, you'll know what you'll want your precision to be. So you can plug that into the error formula above, and for your terms use: x^(2n)/(2n)!
Then, plug in n+1 into that equation, and n will be how many terms you need to be precise to your specified level of accuracy. So you can code your cos(x) function something like:
Anyways, the alternating series theorem (I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong and it's something different) states that S  S_{n+1} > a_{n+1} for any converging alternating series, where S is the true sum of the series, S_{n} is the partial sum of the series through n terms, and a_{n} is the nth term of the series (which is always positive).
If you're looking for the cosine of some variable with N decimal places of accuracy, you're going to want your error (or the term S  S_{n+1}) to be less than N 0s and 5 (example: You want 3 decimal places of accuracy, so your error must be less than .0005)
So, with a little bit of substitution, you'll get: E > a_{n+1}. Then, the only work left to do is to find the first term that is less than your error.
If you're making your own math header, you'll know what you'll want your precision to be. So you can plug that into the error formula above, and for your terms use: x^(2n)/(2n)!
Then, plug in n+1 into that equation, and n will be how many terms you need to be precise to your specified level of accuracy. So you can code your cos(x) function something like:
Code: Select all
n = //your n calculated above;
for(int i = 0; i <= n; i++)
sum = (sum + ((1)^i)*x^(2n))/((2n)!)
return sum;
Re: Cosine for x?
Also, no one seems to have mentioned it  if you use the Taylor approximation around zero (like was suggested), it won't be very accurate for x=1000, for example. You should use the fact that cosine is a periodic function. What you should do is:
0. If x is somewhere between pi and +pi, do nothing. Otherwise,
1. Divide x by 2*pi, round down.
2. Subtract from x the number you got time 2*pi.
This will give you a value in the [pi,pi] area and now you don't need to have a function that's accurate everywhere, only in that part.
For example, if x=1000, then x/(2*pi)=159.1549. So now you don't calculate cos(1000), you should calculate cos(1000159*2*pi)=cos(0.97353). For this to work you also need a good enough approximation of pi, though.
You could get even better results if you only use the [0,pi] part because cos(x)=cos(x), but that will be slightly more complicated and you'll have to develop the Taylor series around pi/2. So I suggest do what I did and then use the Taylor approximation.
0. If x is somewhere between pi and +pi, do nothing. Otherwise,
1. Divide x by 2*pi, round down.
2. Subtract from x the number you got time 2*pi.
This will give you a value in the [pi,pi] area and now you don't need to have a function that's accurate everywhere, only in that part.
For example, if x=1000, then x/(2*pi)=159.1549. So now you don't calculate cos(1000), you should calculate cos(1000159*2*pi)=cos(0.97353). For this to work you also need a good enough approximation of pi, though.
You could get even better results if you only use the [0,pi] part because cos(x)=cos(x), but that will be slightly more complicated and you'll have to develop the Taylor series around pi/2. So I suggest do what I did and then use the Taylor approximation.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."
Not how I say my name
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."
Not how I say my name
Re: Cosine for x?
Actually, since you're coding this, you should use a builtin modulus function.Zohar wrote: What you should do is:
0. If x is somewhere between pi and +pi, do nothing. Otherwise,
1. Divide x by 2*pi, round down.
2. Subtract from x the number you got time 2*pi.
Actually, you might be able to speed things up even further by restricting your domain to [0,π/2] since cos is antisymmetric about π/2. Specifically:You could get even better results if you only use the [0,pi] part because cos(x)=cos(x), but that will be slightly more complicated and you'll have to develop the Taylor series around pi/2.
1. Find x modulo 2π.
2. If this value is greater than π, subtract it from 2π.
3. If this value is greater than π/2, make a note of this fact and then subtract it from π.
4. Use the first few terms of the power series.
You might want to use the Taylor series about π/4 to speed things up a little, but as Zohar said that might be complicating things too much. To be honest, it might be faster to computer using the power series for sin. I'm not sure.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.
 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: Cosine for x?
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.
Re: Cosine for x?
Come to think of it, I've got a related question. What's the fastest way to compute both the cos and sin of the same (real) variable? I'm guessing there's some way to do them simultaneously, but is that really faster than getting the hardware to do both separately?
Should I post a separate thread in Coding? It's seems there's a fair amount of overlap with this sort of thing.
Should I post a separate thread in Coding? It's seems there's a fair amount of overlap with this sort of thing.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.
Re: Cosine for x?
Robin S wrote:Come to think of it, I've got a related question. What's the fastest way to compute both the cos and sin of the same (real) variable? I'm guessing there's some way to do them simultaneously, but is that really faster than getting the hardware to do both separately?
Should I post a separate thread in Coding? It's seems there's a fair amount of overlap with this sort of thing.
cos^{2}x + sin^{2}x = 1?
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.
Re: Cosine for x?
That's pretty slow, as it requires taking a square root. Also, it doesn't given the sign.
This is why I thought maybe it belonged in Coding, rather than Maths.
This is why I thought maybe it belonged in Coding, rather than Maths.
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.
Re: Cosine for x?
I was under the impression that computing square roots is more efficient than just doing the second cos/sin from scratch (and the sign is cheap). But yeah, this probably belongs in Coding.
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.
Re: Cosine for x?
I was going to put it in coding but coding was full of posts like "What API should I use?". This is more math oriented anyway.
Re: Cosine for x?
You could calculate them at the same time...
take your closedform sine summation and in the exponent for x (using the wiki article's variable choices) add a variable called "c" (for counter) to it. So it'd be x^(2n+c)
Now, make a program loop around the sum, but incorporate this c value. Start with n=0, c=0. Add something like "If c is zero, add the sum we just found to sine. Set c=1. Go to beginning. If c is one, add the sum we just found to cosine, set c=0, set n=n+1. Go to beginning."
Perhaps that's not what you had in mind.
take your closedform sine summation and in the exponent for x (using the wiki article's variable choices) add a variable called "c" (for counter) to it. So it'd be x^(2n+c)
Now, make a program loop around the sum, but incorporate this c value. Start with n=0, c=0. Add something like "If c is zero, add the sum we just found to sine. Set c=1. Go to beginning. If c is one, add the sum we just found to cosine, set c=0, set n=n+1. Go to beginning."
Perhaps that's not what you had in mind.
What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.
Re: Cosine for x?
Would that actually be significantly faster than doing the two loops separately? I suppose it might...
This is a placeholder until I think of something more creative to put here.
 headprogrammingczar
 Posts: 3072
 Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
 Location: Beaming you up
Re: Cosine for x?
If you don't need both to be particularly accurate, you can store a hash table of cosine and sine values. Then, given a cosine value and a theta, you can use Newton's Method to get really close to the sine.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you
Re: Cosine for x?
I can't help but think that there'd be some sort of trick using the fact that sin and cos are (up to a sign factor) derivatives of each other. So if you had 1st order approximations for each, you could feed those into each other to give quicklyconverging 2nd order approximations for both. My brain is failing to provide a decent method at the moment, though.
pollywog wrote:I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
Re: Cosine for x?
OK, I've thought of a method that uses numerical integration. I'm not 100% convinced of its accuracy, but here goes:
First, assume that [imath]x \in (0, \pi/2)[/imath], and if it isn't then use modulus as described earlier (0 and [imath]\pi/2[/imath] are degenerate cases that you can test for and give exact solutions for, so I'll ignore them because I don't know what they'll do to my algorithm). Select an integer n, that will affect both the accuracy of the result and the number of computations required. Partition the interval [0, x] with the sequence [imath]\left(x_0, x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n1}, x_n\right) = \left(0, h, 2h, \ldots, \left(n1\right)h, nh\right)[/imath], where [imath]h = x/n[/imath]. Then (apologies for the poor pseudocode):
Then y(n) should be an approximation of sin(x), and z(n) an approximation of cos(x), that is [imath]\mathcal{O}\left(1/n^2\right)[/imath], if I've got it right. There are 2 additions and 2 multiplications in each iteration, so the overall complexity is something like [imath]\mathcal{O}\left(4n\right)[/imath]. Depending on your memory requirements, you can discard y(k) and z(k) at each step, or store them to draw a pretty graph showing how the approximations look.
I make no guarantees as to this being more efficient or accurate than calculating the two functions separately.
First, assume that [imath]x \in (0, \pi/2)[/imath], and if it isn't then use modulus as described earlier (0 and [imath]\pi/2[/imath] are degenerate cases that you can test for and give exact solutions for, so I'll ignore them because I don't know what they'll do to my algorithm). Select an integer n, that will affect both the accuracy of the result and the number of computations required. Partition the interval [0, x] with the sequence [imath]\left(x_0, x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n1}, x_n\right) = \left(0, h, 2h, \ldots, \left(n1\right)h, nh\right)[/imath], where [imath]h = x/n[/imath]. Then (apologies for the poor pseudocode):
Code: Select all
Set y(0) = 0; # Approximation for sine
Set z(0) = 1; # Approximation for cosine
For k = 1 to n
Let z(k) = z(k1)  h * y(k1);
Let y(k) = y(k1) + h * z(k1); # Using z(k) instead of z(k1) may give a better answer
Loop k
Then y(n) should be an approximation of sin(x), and z(n) an approximation of cos(x), that is [imath]\mathcal{O}\left(1/n^2\right)[/imath], if I've got it right. There are 2 additions and 2 multiplications in each iteration, so the overall complexity is something like [imath]\mathcal{O}\left(4n\right)[/imath]. Depending on your memory requirements, you can discard y(k) and z(k) at each step, or store them to draw a pretty graph showing how the approximations look.
I make no guarantees as to this being more efficient or accurate than calculating the two functions separately.
pollywog wrote:I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests