Why you define π as twice the Sup of arctan image ? If the arctan is the inverse function of tan, the Sup being π/2 should not be a proprerty or even a corolary ? I'm a little bit confused
@malik-h2e But what is the motivation for the definition of π/2 as the Sup of arctan ? I didn't get It. In the way that he does sounds like we could take any real number as its Sup
The motivation for defining it as pi/2 is that we know is to draw connections to our outside geometric underatanding. All we know in this proof series so far is that arctan(x)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
Can you please prove arctan(1) = pi/4 ?
That's a great video!
Why you define π as twice the Sup of arctan image ? If the arctan is the inverse function of tan, the Sup being π/2 should not be a proprerty or even a corolary ?
I'm a little bit confused
He defined arctan as the limit of a sequence. We era not using the definition of it as the inverse function of tan.
@malik-h2e But what is the motivation for the definition of π/2 as the Sup of arctan ? I didn't get It. In the way that he does sounds like we could take any real number as its Sup
@@VicTheMathMan I think is that we are only using real analysis references. In that sense, we can't use the geometric definition of pi directly.
The motivation for defining it as pi/2 is that we know is to draw connections to our outside geometric underatanding. All we know in this proof series so far is that arctan(x)