▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
I've noticed the SINC function on the WP 34S, at least in version 3.2r3382, is giving wrong results when in angles modes other than RAD, except when the argument is 1. This is something similar to the current implementation of the Gamma function on the Prime, which gives wrong results in Degrees mode. Sorry if this has been addressed already.
Gerson.
▼
Posts: 3,283
Threads: 104
Joined: Jul 2005
It seems to me that Pauli has to lock after this one.
We'll be fixing any bug, wont we?
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
We'll be fixing any bug, wont we?
No complaint about the Bug Fixing Department, quite the contrary :)
Not an important bug anyway. Too few people using this function, it appears.
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
Can you give an example where an error is occurring?
The numbers I'm seeing here are the same as executing:
SIN
RCL/ L
i.e. sin(x) / x
 Pauli
▼
Posts: 248
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2008
As the argument of SINC is assumed to be in radians, I think it should be rather like:
LocR 001
STOM .00
RAD
SIN
RCL/ L
RCLM .00
Edited: 23 Aug 2013, 8:39 p.m.
▼
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
Why should radians be assumed? We don't assume radians for SIN and the definition of SINC(x) is SIN(x) / x.
It is easy enough to change the behaviour but I wonder if it is necessary or desirable.
 Pauli
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
When in degrees or grads there is a discontinuity in x = 0. For x = 1 the function returns 1 (in accordance with the definition), but for x + epsilon and x  epsilon the function returns pi/180 or pi/200, depending on the angle mode. It appears to me sinc doesn't make sense for arguments in degrees or grads, because sinc is a continuous function and sinc(0) = 1.
Gerson.
▼
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
I understand the problem now.
I see two fixes here:
 force radian mode for SINC or
 change the value returned for SINC(0) to maintain continuity.
Neither is difficult.
 Pauli
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
I don't remember ever seeing sinc using arguments in degrees, but further discussion might be necessary before either choice is made.
Here are two references:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SincFunction.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinc_function
Gerson.
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
 force radian mode for SINC
I see that's what has been implemented in the latest version (2013825 3448), but now 0 is causing a Domain Error that wasn't there before.
Gerson.
Edited: 24 Aug 2013, 10:32 p.m.
▼
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
Bummer, accidentally took out the small x guard code.
 Pauli
▼
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
And fixed in 3450.
 Pauli
Posts: 79
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2010
Ahem... this... misconception... again.
Let's get this over with. Degrees are practical units of angular measurement. They only make sense as arguments of circular functions (with real domain). You could measure everything in degrees provided you scaled every other variable accordingly.
x > x *Pi/180
In fact, you are scaling the variable too in the trigonometric function, it's just you're being quiet about it:
Let's consider the Taylor series for SIN(x). Everyone here will agree with:
SIN(x)= x  x^3/3! + x^5/5! + ...
You can use this to calculate, say SIN(30º):
SIN(x=30º)= 30º  30º^3/3! + 30º^5/5! + ... = 0.5
Please, evaluate this expression taking 30º as just x=30 and see what happens. What's going on?
The series works for x in radians, and for x in degrees we can drop the degree (º) as long as we write it down as:
SIN(x)= x*Pi/180  (x*Pi/180)^3/3! + (x*Pi/180)^5/5! + ...
Please evaluate:
SIN(30º)= 30*Pi/180  (30*Pi/180)^3/3! + (30*Pi/180)^5/5! + ...
Now you got it right!
You can "define" SINC in degrees as long as it is:
SINC(xº) = (180/Pi)* SIN(xº)/x
But you really don't want to use degrees for anything but real trigonometric functions... and then just to write the angles down.
▼
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
This makes sense. SINC is fixed. The documentation will need a minor update to match  in degrees mode SINC(x) = SIN(x) / (PI * x / 180) and in gradians mode SINC(x) = SIN(x) / (PI * x / 200). SINC(30^{o}) = 0.9549296585513720 = SINC(PI / 6 radians).
 Pauli
▼
Posts: 117
Threads: 31
Joined: Sep 2008
It seems that you missed the punchline of Manolo's explanation:
Quote:
But you really don't want to use degrees for anything but real trigonometric functions... and then just to write the angles down.
SINC argument should be always considered radians, independent on angle setting, just like complex trig functions.
There is simply no use case for this functions where it makes sense to treat input x=30 as 30^o
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
SINC argument should be always considered radians, independent on angle setting, just like complex trig functions.
That's my opinion as well. Probably people using SINC have their calculator set to radian most of the time, but we shoudn't count on this. SINC with arguments in degrees is just useless and inconvenient. Anyway, if someone has a good reason for that, I would like to know.
Gerson.
Posts: 4,587
Threads: 105
Joined: Jul 2005
I concur with Manolo's reasoning. There's simply no use using SINC in any angular mode but RAD.
d:)
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
There's simply no use using SINC in any angular mode but RAD.
Then why not assuming the arguments are always in radians, regardless of the angular mode? There's no inconsistency in this since the function is never used with practical angle units. A similar behavior occurs with the complex trigonometric functions, as Andrew Nikitin has reminded us. It would require a short note in page 113 of the manual, however.
▼
Posts: 4,587
Threads: 105
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
It would require a short note in page 113 of the manual, however.
Will be in next edition.
d:)
Posts: 248
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2008
Quote:
Why should radians be assumed?
This is explicitly said in the first link provided by Gerson on the SINC function (under details).
Edited: 24 Aug 2013, 1:35 a.m.
▼
Posts: 3,229
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2006
The same site's definition of SIN also says the argument is in radians. Following logically on from this, the trigonometric functions shouldn't support degrees and gradians at all.
 Pauli
▼
Posts: 248
Threads: 5
Joined: Feb 2008
Good point, I've been too fast to a conclusion.
Manolo's explanation is the right one.
