tan 30= √3/3
sec 30= 2√3/3
cos 60=1/2
cot 60= √3/3
tan 150=-√3/3
sec 150=-2√3/3
tan 210=√3/3
sec 210=-2√3/3
csc 240=-2√3/3
cot240=√3/3
csc 300=-2√3/3
cot 300=-√3/3
tan 330=-√3/2
sec 330=2√3/3
2007-11-03 23:24:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by adids 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
tan 30= √3/3
sec 30= 2√3/3
cos 60=1/2
cot 60= √3/3
tan 150=-√3/3
sec 150=-2√3/3
tan 210=√3/3
sec 210=-2√3/3
csc 240=-2√3/3
cot240=√3/3
csc 300=-2√3/3
cot 300=-√3/3
tan 330=-√3/2
sec 330=2√3/3
I copied this out of my trig chart. Don't forget that, if you know tan, sin and cos already, cot, cos and sec are simply reverses. And, if you already know the basic identities (0-90), it is just a matter of adding to figure out the rest.
2007-11-03 21:07:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Lit Diva 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I know it's not filling in the blanks, but for future reference, you can do these questions really easily.
Sec(ant) is the inverse function of cosine, so where you have cos{pi/4} = sqrt2/2, sec{pi/4} is just 2/sqrt2, which is sqrt2.
Csc is the inverse of sine, and the same applies, and cot is the inverse of tan, so where you have cot{pi/6} = sqrt3, tan{pi/6} = 1/sqrt3
Also, to remove the square root sign from the denominator, multiply the top and bottom by the square root (which is the same as multiplying by one)
Eg. 2/sqrt2 = 2*sqrt2 / sqrt2*sqrt2 = 2sqrt2/2.
2007-11-03 21:45:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
tan pie/6 = [(3)^(1/2)]/3 ..... (3 divided by root 3)
sec pie/6 = 2[(3)^(1/2)]/3 .... (2 root 3 divided by 3)
cosec pie/3 = sec pie/6
cot pie/3 = tan pie/6
csc 2pie/3 = sec pie/6
cot 2pie/3 = - ( tan pie/6)
sorry... too long and tedious to type
steven's got ur answer for u. now to remove the root form the denominator, just multiply both numerator and denominator by the same root.
2007-11-03 21:43:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by absentmindednik 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
there is in common terms one fact. the venture is that persons come to distinctive conclusions as to what that fact is. Proving your conclusions grow to be an excellent larger mess, because of the fact all of us has exceptionally solid motives for their conclusions. right it extremely is a stupid representation; we are all searching for a similar ingredient; the actuality. in this representation, regardless of if, we are all searching for a thingamajigger. None persons have ever had a thingamajigger, yet we do have an define of it. One guy shows a doohickey and broadcasts, "i've got stumbled on the thingamajigger!" yet another guy or woman shows a thingamabob; yet another a gizmo; yet another a hickamadodger. someplace, somebody would extremely discover the thingamajigger, yet all of us has a solid argument for why they think of they even have the real thingamajigger, and because no person is constructive, the argument over who has the real thingamajigger is going on and on! i used to be between people who insisted that I had the real thingamajigger. Now, i'm understanding further and further that we are no longer meant to rigidity approximately understanding each little thing with regards to the real thingamajigger as much as we are meant to easily be attentive to that there is a thingamajigger and be attempting to end what the thingamajigger does! The Bible tells us that there is a God who sacrificed His son on behalf persons. It additionally tells us a thank you to coach appreciation for that sacrifice in how we live our lives and in our habit. we would desire to have faith that. the rest is only info that we are going to on no account agree upon until eventually God gadgets us immediately! it is my modern-day place in this remember, take it or go away it! =P
2016-09-28 07:22:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by glassburn 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
(square root 3/3),(2 square root 3/3),(2square root3/3),(square root 3/3),(2 square root 3/3),(square root 3/3), (square root3/3),(2 square root 3/3),(- square root3/3),(-2 square root 3/3),(-2 square root 3/3),(-square root3/3),(- 2 square root 3/3),(-square root 3/3),(- square root 3),(2) there are all of your answers in order. I hope I can help. You're doing good though. Trig isn't all that fun anyways but keep up the good work!
2007-11-03 21:50:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Sarah 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
regarding the root in the denominator, you just have to rationalize.
example: if your answer is 2/sqroot of 5 you have to multiply it by sqroot of 5 / sqroot of 5 to take out the root at the denominator, but still have the same value when simplified. so your answer will be 2squareroot of 5/ 5
looks messed up, but yea thats basically it :))
2007-11-03 21:46:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mai 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
first of all, sec(theta) = 1/cos(theta)
and csc(theta) = 1/sin(theta)
and cot(theta) = 1/tan(theta)
tan (pi/6) = 1/√3 = (√3)/3
sec(pi/6) = 2/√3 = (2√3)/3
csc(pi/3) = 2/√3 = (2√3)/3
cot(pi/3) = 1/√3 = (√3)/3
csc(2pi/3) = 2/√3 = (2√3)/3
cot(2pi/3) = -1/√3 = (-√3)/3
tan(5pi/6) = -1/√3 = (√3)/3
sec(5pi/6) = -2/√3 = (-2√3)/3
csc(4pi/3) = 2/√3 = (2√3)/3
cot(4pi/3) = 1/√3= (√3)/3
csc(5pi/3) = -2/√3 = (-2√3)/3
cot(5pi/3) = -1/√3 = (-√3)/3
tan(11pi/6) = -1/√3 = (-√3)/3
sec(11pi/6) = 2/√3 = (2√3)/3
that's all the values
2007-11-03 21:35:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by ▐▀▀▼▀▀▌ ►MARS◄ ▐▄▄▲▄▄▌ 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
having a root in the denominator is acceptable. It just isnt standard mathematical syntax/grammar... whatever you want to call it. But there isnt anything mathematically wrong about it. Its like leaving a fraction unreduced, or calling a negative number in the denominator wrong - its arbitrary.
2007-11-03 21:37:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
I've uploaded a complete one for you here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Trig_Table.pdf
2007-11-03 21:36:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Steven 2
·
5⤊
0⤋