Function y=3Cos2x solve for x when 3Cos2x=2.0

richiesmasher

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Messages
111
Hello, I have a function y=3Cos2x
Now I have a graph which I plotted, it makes a nice curve.

Here are the x Values: 0, πc/10, πc/5, (3πc)/10, (2πc)/5, πc/2, (3πc)/5, (7πc)/10, (4πc)/5, (9πc)/10, and πc

The corresponding Y values after running through the function in order from the first x value are: 3.00, 2.43, 0.93, -0.93, -2.43, -3.00, -2.43, -0.93, 0.93, 2.43, 3.00

Now the question asked for the solutions of : 3Cos2x=2.0

My first thought was to look at my graph and see where the line y=2.0 intercepts the curve and found the corresponding x coordinates, I did and obtained,

0.13πc, and 0.86πc, which when you multiply by 180 to turn into degrees, I get 23.4 degrees, and 154.8 degrees, which I'm fairly sure is correct
as my book has x = 24 degrees, and x = 156 degrees, so I'm guessing that my graph was just a bit to the left and it's human error.

However, they also have x = (2πc)/15 and x = (13πc)/15

Am I missing something? how did they get that? Did I have to use the function and solve it?

The scale on my graph is πc/10 for 2 cm on the X axis and 2cm for 1 unit on the Y axis.
 
Last edited:
Hello, I have a function y=3Cos2x
Now I have a graph which I plotted, it makes a nice curve.

Here are the x Values: 0, πc/10, πc/5, (3πc)/10, (2πc)/5, πc/2, (3πc)/5, (7πc)/10, (4πc)/5, (9πc)/10, and πc

The corresponding Y values after running through the function in order from the first x value are: 3.00, 2.43, 0.93, -0.93, -2.43, -3.00, -2.43, -0.93, 0.93, 2.43, 3.00

Now the question asked for the solutions of : 3Cos2x=2.0

My first thought was to look at my graph and see where the line y=2.0 intercepts the curve and found the corresponding x coordinates, I did and obtained,

0.13πc, and 0.86πc, which when you multiply by 180 to turn into degrees, I get 23.4 degrees, and 154.8 degrees, which I'm fairly sure is correct
as my book has x = 24 degrees, and x = 156 degrees, so I'm guessing that my graph was just a bit to the left and it's human error.

However, they also have x = (2πc)/15 and x = (13πc)/15

Am I missing something? how did they get that? Did I have to use the function and solve it?

The scale on my graph is πc/10 for 2 cm on the X axis and 2cm for 1 unit on the Y axis.

Please tell us the actual wording of the exercise. In particular, were you told to solve by looking at a graph? I would expect you to use the inverse cosine function; have you learned about that yet? And how did you get the numbers for the graph?

What does your superscript c, as in "πc/10", mean?? I suppose it must mean "radians", but normally when we use radians, that is just assumed, and no symbol is needed. Were you taught to use this symbol, or did you make it up?

At any rate, if the answer is supposed to be in degrees, and you are expected to find an approximate value by manual graphing, I would do everything in degrees rather than radians. That will also result in numbers that are easier to work with.

It appears that they used degrees, and then converted their rounded degree values to radians; that accounts for their (2πc)/15 and (13πc)/15, which are equal to your decimal values.

So your work seems to be entirely correct, just starting with radians where they started with degrees. That is enough to explain the slight difference in numbers. (The "human error" involved is the reason we don't normally solve by graphing. That method is appropriate mostly as a way to become familiar with the graphs.)
 
Please tell us the actual wording of the exercise. In particular, were you told to solve by looking at a graph? I would expect you to use the inverse cosine function; have you learned about that yet? And how did you get the numbers for the graph?

What does your superscript c, as in "πc/10", mean?? I suppose it must mean "radians", but normally when we use radians, that is just assumed, and no symbol is needed. Were you taught to use this symbol, or did you make it up?

At any rate, if the answer is supposed to be in degrees, and you are expected to find an approximate value by manual graphing, I would do everything in degrees rather than radians. That will also result in numbers that are easier to work with.

It appears that they used degrees, and then converted their rounded degree values to radians; that accounts for their (2πc)/15 and (13πc)/15, which are equal to your decimal values.

So your work seems to be entirely correct, just starting with radians where they started with degrees. That is enough to explain the slight difference in numbers. (The "human error" involved is the reason we don't normally solve by graphing. That method is appropriate mostly as a way to become familiar with the graphs.)

No I wasn't told to look at the graph, It just said solve.

But I figured I could look at the graph to see where those two values were... maybe that's a shortcut and I should know the other method.

Yes I do know the inverse cosine function, But I don't know how to solve the equation using it, So like I said I used the graph.

Yes that symbol means Pi radians over 10.

 
Last edited:
No I wasn't told to look at the graph, It just said solve.

But I figured I could look at the graph to see where those two values were... maybe that's a shortcut and I should know the other method.

Actually, the problem as you show it does clearly tell you to solve "using your graph". That's what I wanted to know; they did tell you what method to use. And what you did was exactly what you were told, even labeling the graph in radians rather than degrees. You've done nothing wrong.

You haven't told me how you actually drew the graph, but presumably you used either a calculator or a table to find values given angles in radians, plotted them, and drew a smooth curve. Such a hand-drawn graph will never be perfect, so you expect only approximate answers.

The curious thing is that, as I said before, they appear to have done their work using degrees first, as I would, rather than the way they told you to. Since you did what they asked, and got reasonably close answers, there is nothing to be concerned about.

Yes I do know the inverse cosine function.

Yes that symbol means Pi radians over 10.

But they don't use that symbol in the book, right? Don't use it; it's just confusing. (Unless your teacher wants you to, for some reason. But I've never seen it before.)

When they want you to use the inverse cosine, they will tell you. But I suppose there's nothing wrong with trying it, to check your answer.
 
Actually, the problem as you show it does clearly tell you to solve "using your graph". That's what I wanted to know; they did tell you what method to use. And what you did was exactly what you were told, even labeling the graph in radians rather than degrees. You've done nothing wrong.

You haven't told me how you actually drew the graph, but presumably you used either a calculator or a table to find values given angles in radians, plotted them, and drew a smooth curve. Such a hand-drawn graph will never be perfect, so you expect only approximate answers.

The curious thing is that, as I said before, they appear to have done their work using degrees first, as I would, rather than the way they told you to. Since you did what they asked, and got reasonably close answers, there is nothing to be concerned about.



But they don't use that symbol in the book, right? Don't use it; it's just confusing. (Unless your teacher wants you to, for some reason. But I've never seen it before.)

When they want you to use the inverse cosine, they will tell you. But I suppose there's nothing wrong with trying it, to check your answer.

How do I use the cosine inverse to check my answer in this case?
 
How do I use the cosine inverse to check my answer in this case?

Give it a try! I imagine they are leading up to that, and haven't yet given any examples, but you should find some later in the book.

Just do the same thing you usually do to solve an equation: undo one operation at a time. You are solving 3Cos2x=2; so first divide by 3, then undo the cosine by taking the inverse cosine of each side (but think about what other values the angle can have to give the same cosine); then divide by 2. That part about other values is the hard part, which they will spend some time on. But you should get at least the first value easily.
 
Give it a try! I imagine they are leading up to that, and haven't yet given any examples, but you should find some later in the book.

Just do the same thing you usually do to solve an equation: undo one operation at a time. You are solving 3Cos2x=2; so first divide by 3, then undo the cosine by taking the inverse cosine of each side (but think about what other values the angle can have to give the same cosine); then divide by 2. That part about other values is the hard part, which they will spend some time on. But you should get at least the first value easily.

Indeed I did get the first value easily 24.1, ok now I will work on the hard part.....I imagine it has something to do with the graph of the cos function... I know it has to do with this concept,
Like in the sine graph, sine 90 is 1, sine -90 is -1
 
Indeed I did get the first value easily 24.1, ok now I will work on the hard part.....I imagine it has something to do with the graph of the cos function... I know it has to do with this concept,
Like in the sine graph, sine 90 is 1, sine -90 is -1

Yes, you can relate it to the graph, and in particular to symmetry. There are several ways to think about it; the one you figure out for yourself will probably be the best way for you, so I'll let you have the fun of discovering it. Let me know!
 
Yes, you can relate it to the graph, and in particular to symmetry. There are several ways to think about it; the one you figure out for yourself will probably be the best way for you, so I'll let you have the fun of discovering it. Let me know!

I did figure out an angle, using the circle and reference triangles, it would be equivalent to 270 +24.1 degrees which is 335.9 degrees and the cosine of that indeed is the same as the cosine of 24.1, however it's not close to the answer in the book which is 156 degrees.
 
I did figure out an angle, using the circle and reference triangles, it would be equivalent to 270 +24.1 degrees which is 335.9 degrees and the cosine of that indeed is the same as the cosine of 24.1, however it's not close to the answer in the book which is 156 degrees.

At the point where you applied the inverse cosine, you found that 2x = 48.2°. This is where you have to find the other angle, not after solving for x. You are not working with the cosine of x itself.

The two angles that have the same cosine are 48.2° and -48.2°. But any angle coterminal with these will also have the same cosine. You need to find one so that x is in the desired interval (0° to 180°).

Why did you think adding 270 would work? Reference angles are always related to 0 or 180. You may have looked at something incorrectly.
 
At the point where you applied the inverse cosine, you found that 2x = 48.2°. This is where you have to find the other angle, not after solving for x. You are not working with the cosine of x itself.

The two angles that have the same cosine are 48.2° and -48.2°. But any angle coterminal with these will also have the same cosine. You need to find one so that x is in the desired interval (0° to 180°).

Why did you think adding 270 would work? Reference angles are always related to 0 or 180. You may have looked at something incorrectly.

This is why I thought adding 270 would work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki7wklKnlXU

Also why are 48.2 and -48.2 degrees have the same cosine? What about that is giving me this information?
 
Last edited:
why are 48.2 and -48.2

how do they have the same cosine?
That is not a complete statement, and, if you're using degree measure, then you must type a degree symbol after each measurement. In general, angle measurements displayed without a degree symbol indicate radians.

Are you familiar with the unit-circle definition of cosine? If the terminal ray of an angle in standard position rotates 48.2° in the positive direction or in the negative direction, the intersection point on the unit circle will have the same x-coordinate. (Draw it, and convince yourself.) The x-coordinate is the cosine value. :cool:
 
This is why I thought adding 270 would work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki7wklKnlXU

Also why are 48.2 and -48.2 degrees have the same cosine? What about that is giving me this information?

The video expresses the main idea much as I would (and closely related to the "unit circle" approach that mmm4444bot mentioned), but finishes up a little awkwardly. In the sine example, he starts with 40°, but to get the answer he quickly says, "90° + 50° or 140°", without explaining where the 50 came from. It is the complement of 40°, so what he really did is "90° + (90° - 40°) = 140°". I prefer relating it to 180°: if you notice that the second triangle is the reflection of the first in the y axis, you see that the new angle is just 180° - 40° = 140°. So you don't need to use 90°.

Similarly, the result in the cosine example is "270° + 50° = 320°", or really "270° + (90° - 40°) = 320°". I just subtract from 360°, which does the same thing in one step: 360° - 40° = 320°.

But the result is the same. I was just curious how you used 270°. (What I did last time was to subtract from 0°, because I wasn't thinking yet about the required interval, and could just add 360° later. Using 360° immediately is better for this problem.) But do you see that reflecting in the x axis gives you the negative angle? This is exactly the point that your video is making!

Another approach you can take is the fact that cosine is an even function: the identity cos(-x) = cos(x), so changing the sign of the angle leaves the cosine unchanged. This is reflected in the appearance of the graph of the cosine.
 
The video expresses the main idea much as I would (and closely related to the "unit circle" approach that mmm4444bot mentioned), but finishes up a little awkwardly. In the sine example, he starts with 40°, but to get the answer he quickly says, "90° + 50° or 140°", without explaining where the 50 came from. It is the complement of 40°, so what he really did is "90° + (90° - 40°) = 140°". I prefer relating it to 180°: if you notice that the second triangle is the reflection of the first in the y axis, you see that the new angle is just 180° - 40° = 140°. So you don't need to use 90°.

Similarly, the result in the cosine example is "270° + 50° = 320°", or really "270° + (90° - 40°) = 320°". I just subtract from 360°, which does the same thing in one step: 360° - 40° = 320°.

But the result is the same. I was just curious how you used 270°. (What I did last time was to subtract from 0°, because I wasn't thinking yet about the required interval, and could just add 360° later. Using 360° immediately is better for this problem.) But do you see that reflecting in the x axis gives you the negative angle? This is exactly the point that your video is making!

Another approach you can take is the fact that cosine is an even function: the identity cos(-x) = cos(x), so changing the sign of the angle leaves the cosine unchanged. This is reflected in the appearance of the graph of the cosine.

Ah Dr Peterson, I really must thank you, I now understand.... I really do, and thank you MMM Bot for your contribution as well.
 
Top