Maintaining your privacy is important to us. For this reason, we have developed a Privacy Policy that describes how we use and store your information. Please review our privacy practices and let us know if you have any questions.
Collection and use of personal information
Personal information refers to data that can be used to identify or contact a specific person.
You may be asked to provide your personal information at any time when you contact us.
Below are some examples of the types of personal information we may collect and how we may use such information.
What personal information do we collect:
- When you submit an application on the site, we may collect various information, including your name, phone number, email address, etc.
How we use your personal information:
- The personal information we collect allows us to contact you with unique offers, promotions and other events and upcoming events.
- From time to time, we may use your personal information to send important notices and communications.
- We may also use personal information for internal purposes, such as conducting audits, data analysis and various research in order to improve the services we provide and provide you with recommendations regarding our services.
- If you participate in a prize draw, contest or similar promotion, we may use the information you provide to administer such programs.
Disclosure of information to third parties
We do not disclose the information received from you to third parties.
Exceptions:
- If necessary - in accordance with the law, judicial procedure, in legal proceedings, and/or on the basis of public requests or requests from government bodies in the Russian Federation - to disclose your personal information. We may also disclose information about you if we determine that such disclosure is necessary or appropriate for security, law enforcement, or other public importance purposes.
- In the event of a reorganization, merger, or sale, we may transfer the personal information we collect to the applicable successor third party.
Protection of personal information
We take precautions - including administrative, technical and physical - to protect your personal information from loss, theft, and misuse, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction.
Respecting your privacy at the company level
To ensure that your personal information is secure, we communicate privacy and security standards to our employees and strictly enforce privacy practices.
In this article we will take a comprehensive look. Basic trigonometric identities are equalities that establish a connection between the sine, cosine, tangent and cotangent of one angle, and allow one to find any of these trigonometric functions through a known other.
Let us immediately list the main trigonometric identities that we will analyze in this article. Let's write them down in a table, and below we'll give the output of these formulas and provide the necessary explanations.
Page navigation.
Relationship between sine and cosine of one angle
Sometimes they do not talk about the main trigonometric identities listed in the table above, but about one single basic trigonometric identity kind 
. The explanation for this fact is quite simple: the equalities are obtained from the main trigonometric identity after dividing both of its parts by and, respectively, and the equalities 
And 
follow from the definitions of sine, cosine, tangent and cotangent. We'll talk about this in more detail in the following paragraphs.
That is, it is the equality that is of particular interest, which was given the name of the main trigonometric identity.
Before proving the main trigonometric identity, we give its formulation: the sum of the squares of the sine and cosine of one angle is identically equal to one. Now let's prove it.
The basic trigonometric identity is very often used when converting trigonometric expressions. It allows the sum of the squares of the sine and cosine of one angle to be replaced by one. No less often, the basic trigonometric identity is used in the reverse order: unit is replaced by the sum of the squares of the sine and cosine of any angle.
Tangent and cotangent through sine and cosine
Identities connecting tangent and cotangent with sine and cosine of one angle of view and 
follow immediately from the definitions of sine, cosine, tangent and cotangent. Indeed, by definition, sine is the ordinate of y, cosine is the abscissa of x, tangent is the ratio of the ordinate to the abscissa, that is, 
, and the cotangent is the ratio of the abscissa to the ordinate, that is, 
.
Thanks to such obviousness of the identities and Tangent and cotangent are often defined not through the ratio of abscissa and ordinate, but through the ratio of sine and cosine. So the tangent of an angle is the ratio of the sine to the cosine of this angle, and the cotangent is the ratio of the cosine to the sine.
In conclusion of this paragraph, it should be noted that the identities and take place for all angles at which the trigonometric functions included in them make sense. So the formula is valid for any , other than (otherwise the denominator will have zero, and we did not define division by zero), and the formula - for all , different from , where z is any .
Relationship between tangent and cotangent
An even more obvious trigonometric identity than the previous two is the identity connecting the tangent and cotangent of one angle of the form . It is clear that it holds for any angles other than , otherwise either the tangent or the cotangent are not defined.
Proof of the formula very simple. By definition and from where 
. The proof could have been carried out a little differently. Since , That 
.
So, the tangent and cotangent of the same angle at which they make sense are .
The original source is located. Alpha stands for real number. The equal sign in the above expressions indicates that if you add a number or infinity to infinity, nothing will change, the result will be the same infinity. If we take the infinite set of natural numbers as an example, then the considered examples can be represented in this form:
To clearly prove that they were right, mathematicians came up with many different methods. Personally, I look at all these methods as shamans dancing with tambourines. Essentially, they all boil down to the fact that either some of the rooms are unoccupied and new guests are moving in, or that some of the visitors are thrown out into the corridor to make room for guests (very humanly). I presented my view on such decisions in the form of a fantasy story about the Blonde. What is my reasoning based on? Relocating an infinite number of visitors takes an infinite amount of time. After we have vacated the first room for a guest, one of the visitors will always walk along the corridor from his room to the next one until the end of time. Of course, the time factor can be stupidly ignored, but this will be in the category of “no law is written for fools.” It all depends on what we are doing: adjusting reality to mathematical theories or vice versa.
What is an “endless hotel”? An infinite hotel is a hotel that always has any number of empty beds, regardless of how many rooms are occupied. If all the rooms in the endless "visitor" corridor are occupied, there is another endless corridor with "guest" rooms. There will be an infinite number of such corridors. Moreover, the “infinite hotel” has an infinite number of floors in an infinite number of buildings on an infinite number of planets in an infinite number of universes created by an infinite number of Gods. Mathematicians are not able to distance themselves from banal everyday problems: there is always only one God-Allah-Buddha, there is only one hotel, there is only one corridor. So mathematicians are trying to juggle the serial numbers of hotel rooms, convincing us that it is possible to “shove in the impossible.”
I will demonstrate the logic of my reasoning to you using the example of an infinite set of natural numbers. First you need to answer a very simple question: how many sets of natural numbers are there - one or many? There is no correct answer to this question, since we invented numbers ourselves; numbers do not exist in Nature. Yes, Nature is great at counting, but for this she uses other mathematical tools that are not familiar to us. I’ll tell you what Nature thinks another time. Since we invented numbers, we ourselves will decide how many sets of natural numbers there are. Let's consider both options, as befits real scientists.
Option one. “Let us be given” one single set of natural numbers, which lies serenely on the shelf. We take this set from the shelf. That's it, there are no other natural numbers left on the shelf and nowhere to take them. We cannot add one to this set, since we already have it. What if you really want to? No problem. We can take one from the set we have already taken and return it to the shelf. After that, we can take one from the shelf and add it to what we have left. As a result, we will again get an infinite set of natural numbers. You can write down all our manipulations like this:
I wrote down the actions in algebraic notation and in set theory notation, with a detailed listing of the elements of the set. The subscript indicates that we have one and only set of natural numbers. It turns out that the set of natural numbers will remain unchanged only if one is subtracted from it and the same unit is added.
Option two. We have many different infinite sets of natural numbers on our shelf. I emphasize - DIFFERENT, despite the fact that they are practically indistinguishable. Let's take one of these sets. Then we take one from another set of natural numbers and add it to the set we have already taken. We can even add two sets of natural numbers. This is what we get:
The subscripts "one" and "two" indicate that these elements belonged to different sets. Yes, if you add one to an infinite set, the result will also be an infinite set, but it will not be the same as the original set. If you add another infinite set to one infinite set, the result is a new infinite set consisting of the elements of the first two sets.
The set of natural numbers is used for counting in the same way as a ruler is for measuring. Now imagine that you added one centimeter to the ruler. This will be a different line, not equal to the original one.
You can accept or not accept my reasoning - it is your own business. But if you ever encounter mathematical problems, think about whether you are following the path of false reasoning trodden by generations of mathematicians. After all, studying mathematics, first of all, forms a stable stereotype of thinking in us, and only then adds to our mental abilities (or, conversely, deprives us of free-thinking).
pozg.ru
Sunday, August 4, 2019
I was finishing a postscript to an article about and saw this wonderful text on Wikipedia:
We read: "... the rich theoretical basis of the mathematics of Babylon did not have a holistic character and was reduced to a set of disparate techniques, devoid of a common system and evidence base."
Wow! How smart we are and how well we can see the shortcomings of others. Is it difficult for us to look at modern mathematics in the same context? Slightly paraphrasing the above text, I personally got the following:
The rich theoretical basis of modern mathematics is not holistic in nature and is reduced to a set of disparate sections, devoid of a common system and evidence base.
I won’t go far to confirm my words - it has a language and conventions that are different from the language and conventions of many other branches of mathematics. The same names in different branches of mathematics can have different meanings. I want to devote a whole series of publications to the most obvious mistakes of modern mathematics. See you soon.
Saturday, August 3, 2019
How to divide a set into subsets? To do this, you need to enter a new unit of measurement that is present in some of the elements of the selected set. Let's look at an example.
May we have plenty A consisting of four people. This set is formed on the basis of “people.” Let us denote the elements of this set by the letter A, the subscript with a number will indicate the serial number of each person in this set. Let's introduce a new unit of measurement "gender" and denote it by the letter b. Since sexual characteristics are inherent in all people, we multiply each element of the set A based on gender b. Notice that our set of “people” has now become a set of “people with gender characteristics.” After this we can divide the sexual characteristics into male bm and women's bw sexual characteristics. Now we can apply a mathematical filter: we select one of these sexual characteristics, no matter which one - male or female. If a person has it, then we multiply it by one, if there is no such sign, we multiply it by zero. And then we use regular school mathematics. Look what happened.
After multiplication, reduction and rearrangement, we ended up with two subsets: the subset of men Bm and a subset of women Bw. Mathematicians reason in approximately the same way when they apply set theory in practice. But they don’t tell us the details, but give us the finished result - “a lot of people consist of a subset of men and a subset of women.” Naturally, you may have a question: how correctly has the mathematics been applied in the transformations outlined above? I dare to assure you that essentially everything was done correctly; it is enough to know the mathematical basis of arithmetic, Boolean algebra and other branches of mathematics. What it is? Some other time I will tell you about this.
As for supersets, you can combine two sets into one superset by selecting the unit of measurement present in the elements of these two sets.
As you can see, units of measurement and ordinary mathematics make set theory a relic of the past. A sign that all is not well with set theory is that mathematicians have come up with their own language and notation for set theory. Mathematicians acted as shamans once did. Only shamans know how to “correctly” apply their “knowledge.” They teach us this “knowledge”.
In conclusion, I want to show you how mathematicians manipulate .
Monday, January 7, 2019
In the fifth century BC, the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea formulated his famous aporias, the most famous of which is the “Achilles and the Tortoise” aporia. Here's what it sounds like:
Let's say Achilles runs ten times faster than the tortoise and is a thousand steps behind it. During the time it takes Achilles to run this distance, the tortoise will crawl a hundred steps in the same direction. When Achilles runs a hundred steps, the tortoise crawls another ten steps, and so on. The process will continue ad infinitum, Achilles will never catch up with the tortoise.
This reasoning became a logical shock for all subsequent generations. Aristotle, Diogenes, Kant, Hegel, Hilbert... They all considered Zeno's aporia in one way or another. The shock was so strong that " ... discussions continue to this day; the scientific community has not yet been able to come to a common opinion on the essence of paradoxes ... mathematical analysis, set theory, new physical and philosophical approaches were involved in the study of the issue; none of them became a generally accepted solution to the problem..."[Wikipedia, "Zeno's Aporia". Everyone understands that they are being fooled, but no one understands what the deception consists of.
From a mathematical point of view, Zeno in his aporia clearly demonstrated the transition from quantity to . This transition implies application instead of permanent ones. As far as I understand, the mathematical apparatus for using variable units of measurement has either not yet been developed, or it has not been applied to Zeno’s aporia. Applying our usual logic leads us into a trap. We, due to the inertia of thinking, apply constant units of time to the reciprocal value. From a physical point of view, this looks like time slowing down until it stops completely at the moment when Achilles catches up with the turtle. If time stops, Achilles can no longer outrun the tortoise.
If we turn our usual logic around, everything falls into place. Achilles runs at a constant speed. Each subsequent segment of his path is ten times shorter than the previous one. Accordingly, the time spent on overcoming it is ten times less than the previous one. If we apply the concept of “infinity” in this situation, then it would be correct to say “Achilles will catch up with the turtle infinitely quickly.”
How to avoid this logical trap? Remain in constant units of time and do not switch to reciprocal units. In Zeno's language it looks like this:
In the time it takes Achilles to run a thousand steps, the tortoise will crawl a hundred steps in the same direction. During the next time interval equal to the first, Achilles will run another thousand steps, and the tortoise will crawl a hundred steps. Now Achilles is eight hundred steps ahead of the tortoise.
This approach adequately describes reality without any logical paradoxes. But this is not a complete solution to the problem. Einstein’s statement about the irresistibility of the speed of light is very similar to Zeno’s aporia “Achilles and the Tortoise”. We still have to study, rethink and solve this problem. And the solution must be sought not in infinitely large numbers, but in units of measurement.
Another interesting aporia of Zeno tells about a flying arrow:
A flying arrow is motionless, since at every moment of time it is at rest, and since it is at rest at every moment of time, it is always at rest.
In this aporia, the logical paradox is overcome very simply - it is enough to clarify that at each moment of time a flying arrow is at rest at different points in space, which, in fact, is motion. Another point needs to be noted here. From one photograph of a car on the road it is impossible to determine either the fact of its movement or the distance to it. To determine whether a car is moving, you need two photographs taken from the same point at different points in time, but you cannot determine the distance from them. To determine the distance to a car, you need two photographs taken from different points in space at one point in time, but from them you cannot determine the fact of movement (of course, you still need additional data for calculations, trigonometry will help you). What I want to draw special attention to is that two points in time and two points in space are different things that should not be confused, because they provide different opportunities for research.
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
I have already told you that with the help of which shamans try to sort ““ reality. How do they do this? How does the formation of a set actually occur?
Let's take a closer look at the definition of a set: "a collection of different elements, conceived as a single whole." Now feel the difference between two phrases: “conceivable as a whole” and “conceivable as a whole.” The first phrase is the end result, the set. The second phrase is a preliminary preparation for the formation of a multitude. At this stage, reality is divided into individual elements (the “whole”), from which a multitude will then be formed (the “single whole”). At the same time, the factor that makes it possible to combine the “whole” into a “single whole” is carefully monitored, otherwise the shamans will not succeed. After all, shamans know in advance exactly what set they want to show us.
I'll show you the process with an example. We select the “red solid in a pimple” - this is our “whole”. At the same time, we see that these things are with a bow, and there are without a bow. After that, we select part of the “whole” and form a set “with a bow”. This is how shamans get their food by tying their set theory to reality.
Now let's do a little trick. Let’s take “solid with a pimple with a bow” and combine these “wholes” according to color, selecting the red elements. We got a lot of "red". Now the final question: are the resulting sets “with a bow” and “red” the same set or two different sets? Only shamans know the answer. More precisely, they themselves do not know anything, but as they say, so it will be.
This simple example shows that set theory is completely useless when it comes to reality. What's the secret? We formed a set of "red solid with a pimple and a bow." The formation took place in four different units of measurement: color (red), strength (solid), roughness (pimply), decoration (with a bow). Only a set of units of measurement allows us to adequately describe real objects in the language of mathematics. This is what it looks like.
The letter "a" with different indices indicates different units of measurement. The units of measurement by which the “whole” is distinguished at the preliminary stage are highlighted in brackets. The unit of measurement by which the set is formed is taken out of brackets. The last line shows the final result - an element of the set. As you can see, if we use units of measurement to form a set, then the result does not depend on the order of our actions. And this is mathematics, and not the dancing of shamans with tambourines. Shamans can “intuitively” come to the same result, arguing that it is “obvious,” because units of measurement are not part of their “scientific” arsenal.
Using units of measurement it is very easy to break one
Today, everything that we do not take belongs to some set (as mathematicians assure us). By the way, did you see in the mirror on your forehead a list of those sets to which you belong? And I haven't seen such a list. I will say more - not a single thing in reality has a tag with a list of the sets to which this thing belongs. Sets are all inventions of shamans. How do they do it? Let's look a little deeper into history and see what the elements of the set looked like before the mathematician shamans took them into their sets.
A long time ago, when no one had ever heard of mathematics, and only trees and Saturn had rings, huge herds of wild elements of sets roamed the physical fields (after all, shamans had not yet invented mathematical fields). They looked something like this.
Yes, don’t be surprised, from the point of view of mathematics, all elements of sets are most similar to sea urchins - from one point, like needles, units of measurement stick out in all directions. For those who, I remind you that any unit of measurement can be geometrically represented as a segment of arbitrary length, and a number as a point. Geometrically, any quantity can be represented as a bunch of segments sticking out in different directions from one point. This point is point zero. I won’t draw this piece of geometric art (no inspiration), but you can easily imagine it.
What units of measurement form an element of a set? All sorts of things that describe a given element from different points of view. These are ancient units of measurement that our ancestors used and which everyone has long forgotten about. These are the modern units of measurement that we use now. These are also units of measurement unknown to us, which our descendants will come up with and which they will use to describe reality.
We've sorted out the geometry - the proposed model of the elements of the set has a clear geometric representation. What about physics? Units of measurement are the direct connection between mathematics and physics. If shamans do not recognize units of measurement as a full-fledged element of mathematical theories, this is their problem. I personally can’t imagine the real science of mathematics without units of measurement. That is why at the very beginning of the story about set theory I spoke of it as being in the Stone Age.
But let's move on to the most interesting thing - the algebra of elements of sets. Algebraically, any element of a set is a product (the result of multiplication) of different quantities. It looks like this.
I deliberately did not use the conventions of set theory, since we are considering an element of a set in its natural environment before the emergence of set theory. Each pair of letters in brackets denotes a separate quantity, consisting of a number indicated by the letter " n" and the unit of measurement indicated by the letter " a". The indices next to the letters indicate that the numbers and units of measurement are different. One element of the set can consist of an infinite number of quantities (how much we and our descendants have enough imagination). Each bracket is geometrically depicted as a separate segment. In the example with the sea urchin one bracket is one needle.
How do shamans form sets from different elements? In fact, by units of measurement or by numbers. Not understanding anything about mathematics, they take different sea urchins and carefully examine them in search of that single needle, along which they form a set. If there is such a needle, then this element belongs to the set; if there is no such needle, then this element is not from this set. Shamans tell us fables about thought processes and the whole.
As you may have guessed, the same element can belong to very different sets. Next I will show you how sets, subsets and other shamanic nonsense are formed.