Full download Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski Solutions Manual all chapter 2024 pdf

Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski
Solutions Manual
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/trigonometry-4th-edition-dugopolski-solutions-manual
/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/trigonometry-4th-edition-
dugopolski-test-bank/
Precalculus Functions and Graphs 4th Edition Dugopolski

Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/precalculus-functions-and-
graphs-4th-edition-dugopolski-solutions-manual/
Algebra and Trigonometry 4th Edition Stewart Solutions

Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/algebra-and-trigonometry-4th-
edition-stewart-solutions-manual/
College Algebra 6th Edition Dugopolski Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/college-algebra-6th-edition-
dugopolski-solutions-manual/
Precalculus Functions and Graphs 4th Edition Dugopolski
Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/precalculus-functions-and-
graphs-4th-edition-dugopolski-test-bank/
Trigonometry 10th Edition Lial Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/trigonometry-10th-edition-lial-
solutions-manual/
Trigonometry 10th Edition Larson Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/trigonometry-10th-edition-larson-
solutions-manual/
Trigonometry 11th Edition Lial Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/trigonometry-11th-edition-lial-
solutions-manual/
Trigonometry 8th Edition McKeague Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/trigonometry-8th-edition-
mckeague-solutions-manual/
5.1 The Law of Sines 235
For Thought 6. Note α = 180◦ − (16◦ + 121◦ ) = 43◦ .

c 4.2
1. True, the sum of the measurements of the three By the sine law = and
sin 16◦ sin 121◦
angles is 180◦ .
a 4.2
= . Then
2. False, since similar triangles have the same sin 43◦ sin 121◦
corresponding angles but their corresponding
4.2
sides are not necessarily equal. c= · sin 16◦ ≈ 1.4
sin 121◦
3. True, since three angles do not uniquely
and
determine a triangle. 4.2
a= · sin 43◦ ≈ 3.3.
88 sin 9◦ sin 121◦
4. False, a sin 17◦ = 88 sin 9◦ and a = .
sin 17◦
7. Note β = 180◦ − (12.2◦ + 33.6◦ ) = 134.2◦ .
5 sin 44◦

5. False, since α = sin−1 ≈ 11◦ and a 17.6
18 By the sine law ◦
=
α = 180 − 11◦ = 169◦ . sin 12.2 sin 134.2◦
c 17.6
2.3 sin 39◦ and ◦
= . Then
6. True, since sin β = . sin 33.6 sin 134.2◦
1.6
√ 17.6
sin 60◦ 3/2 1 a= · sin 12.2◦ ≈ 5.2
7. True, since √ = √ = and sin 134.2◦
3 3 2
sin 30◦ 1 and
= sin 30◦ = .
1 2 17.6
c= · sin 33.6◦ ≈ 13.6.
8. False, a triangle exists since a = 500 is bigger sin 134.2◦
than h = 10 sin 60◦ ≈ 8.7 .
8. Note α = 180◦ − (39.5◦ + 66.7◦ ) = 73.8◦ .
9. True, since the triangle that exists is a
b 6.4
right triangle. By the sine law =
sin 66.7 ◦ sin 73.8◦
10. False, there exists only one triangle and it c 6.4
is an obtuse triangle. and ◦
= .
sin 39.5 sin 73.8◦
6.4
5.1 Exercises So b = · sin 66.7◦ ≈ 6.1
sin 73.8◦
1. oblique 6.4
and c = · sin 39.5◦ ≈ 4.2.
sin 73.8◦
2. three
9. Note β = 180◦ − (10.3◦ + 143.7◦ ) = 26◦ .
3. ambiguous
@

4. law of sines b
143.7◦ @ a
@
5. Note γ = 180◦ − (64◦ + 72◦ ) = 44◦ .

26◦ @
@
b 13.6 10.3◦

By the sine law = and @
sin 72◦ sin 64◦ 48.3
c 13.6
◦
= . Then
sin 44 sin 64◦
13.6 Since
b= · sin 72◦ ≈ 14.4 a 48.3
sin 64◦ ◦
=
sin 10.3 sin 143.7◦
and and
13.6
c= · sin 44◦ ≈ 10.5. b 48.3
sin 64◦ ◦
=
sin 26 sin 143.7◦
Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

236 Chapter 5 Applications of Trigonometry
we have 12. Note β = 180◦ − (39.7◦ + 91.6◦ ) = 48.7◦ .

48.3
a= · sin 10.3◦ ≈ 14.6
sin 143.7◦ 16.4 @
91.6◦ @ a
@

and
48.3 48.7◦ @
◦
@
b= · sin 26◦ ≈ 35.8 39.7
sin 143.7◦ @
c
10. Note γ = 180◦ − (94.7◦ + 30.6◦ ) = 54.7◦ .
a 16.4
@
Since ◦
= and
c sin 39.7 sin 48.7◦
94.7◦ @ a
@
c 16.4
◦
= , we have
sin 48.7◦

30.6◦ 54.7◦ @
@ sin 91.6
16.4
a= · sin 39.7◦ ≈ 13.9 and
@
3.9 sin 48.7◦
16.4
c= · sin 91.6◦ ≈ 21.8
a 3.9 sin 48.7◦
Since ◦
= and
sin 30.6 sin 94.7◦ 13. Draw angle α = 39.6◦ and let h be the height.
c 3.9
◦
= , we have
sin 54.7 sin 94.7◦ B
.
3.9 18.4
.
a= · sin 30.6◦ ≈ 2.0 and .
.
sin 94.7◦

.
3.9 .h
.
c= · sin 54.7◦ ≈ 3.2. 39.6◦
.
.
sin 94.7◦ .
11. Note α = 180◦ − (120.7◦ + 13.6◦ ) = 45.7◦ . A
489.3

h
Since sin 39.6◦ =
@
, we have
120.7◦ @ c

@
18.4◦

h = 18.4 sin 39.6◦ ≈ 11.7.

45.7◦ @
◦
@
13.6
@
b There is no triangle since a = 3.7 is smaller
than h ≈ 11.7 .
Since 14. Draw angle β = 28.6◦ and let h be the height.

c 489.3
◦
=
sin 13.6 sin 45.7◦
and C
. .
.
b 489.3
= 40.7 . .
sin 120.7 ◦ sin 45.7◦ . .
. .

. . 52.5
we have .h .
. .
489.3 28.6◦
. α ..
c= · sin 13.6◦ ≈ 160.8 and .
.
sin 45.7◦ B
489.3
b= · sin 120.7◦ ≈ 587.9
sin 45.7◦
Since h = 40.7 sin 28.6◦ ≈ 19.5 and b > h
and b > 40.7, there is exactly one triangle.
By the sine law, we obtain
40.7 52.5
=
sin α sin 28.6◦

40.7 sin 28.6◦ C

sin α = and ..
52.5 10.6
.
◦ .
.

−1 40.7 sin 28.6

α = sin .
.
. 8.1

52.5
◦

◦ β .
α ≈ 21.8 . 41.2
2.

A
Then γ = 180◦ − +(28.6◦ = 21.8◦ ) 129.6◦ .
c 52.5
Since ◦
= , we get Apply the sine law to the acute triangle.
sin 129.6 sin 28.6◦
52.5 8.1 10.6
c = sin 129.6◦ · ≈ 84.5. =
sin 28.6◦ sin 41.2◦ sin β1
10.6 sin 41.2◦
15. Draw angle γ = 60◦ and let h be the height. sin β1 =
8.1
.
A sin β1 ≈ 0.862
20 . −1
.
. β1 = sin (0.862) ≈ 59.5◦
.
.h

◦ .
. So γ1 = 180◦ − (59.5◦ + 41.2◦ ) = 79.3◦ . By
60 .
. 8.1
sin 79.3◦ ≈ 12.1.

C the sine law, c1 =
sin 41.2◦
On the obtuse triangle, β2 = 180◦ − β1 =
120.5◦ and
Since √
h = 20 sin 60◦ = 10 3 γ2 = 180◦ − (120.5◦ + 41.2◦ ) = 18.3◦ .
and c = h, there is exactly one triangle and it 8.1
is a right triangle. Then β = 90◦ and α = 30◦ . By the sine law, c2 = sin 18.3◦ ≈ 3.9.
sin 41.2◦
By the Pythagorean Theorem,
17. Draw angle β = 138.1◦ .
q √ √
a= 202 − (10 3)2 = 400 − 300 = 10. A
. .
@ . . . . 15.6
16. Draw angle α = 41.2◦ and let h be the height. . .
@ . .
. .
@ . .
C 6.3 @ . .
. @ 138.1 ◦ . .
. . .
10.6 . @ .
.

. B C
.h
◦ .
.
41.2 .
.
There is one triangle. Apply the sine law.
A
15.6 6.3
=
sin 138.1◦ sin γ
Since h = 10.6 sin 41.2◦ ≈ 7.0 and
6.3 sin 138.1◦
7.0 < a < 10.6, there are two triangles sin γ =
and they are given by 15.6
C sin γ ≈ 0.2697
.
. .
10.6

. .
. . γ = sin−1 (0.2697) ≈ 15.6◦
. .
. . 8.1
. h . So α = 180◦ − (15.6◦ + 138.1◦ ) = 26.3◦ .
. .
41.2◦
. β1 . .
. Using the sine law, we obtain
.
A 15.6
a= sin 26.3◦ ≈ 10.3.
sin 138.1◦

18. Draw angle γ = 128.6◦ . So γ2 = 180◦ − (45.1◦ + 32.7◦ ) = 102.2◦ .

B By the sine law,
28.6
sin 102.2◦ ≈ 51.7.
@
c2 =
sin 32.7◦
@
@
9.6 @
@ 128.6◦ On the obtuse triangle, we find
@ α1 = 180◦ − α2 = 134.9◦ and
C A γ1 = 180◦ − (134.9◦ + 32.7◦ ) = 12.4◦ .
By the sine law,
Since c < 9.6, no triangle exists.
28.6
19. Draw angle β = 32.7◦ and let h be the height. c1 = sin 12.4◦ ≈ 11.4.
sin 32.7◦
20. Draw angle α = 30◦ and let h be the height.

. C
37.5
.

. B
. .
. 40
.
.h .
. .
◦ . .
32.7 . .h
. .
B 30◦ .
.
.
A
Since h = 37.5 sin 32.7◦
≈ 20.3 and
20.3 < b < 37.5, there are two triangles and Since h = 40 sin 30◦ = 20 and a = h, there is
they are given by exactly one triangle and it is a right triangle.
C So β = 60◦ , γ = 90◦ , √
and by the Pythagorean
√
. .
. Theorem we get b = 402 − 202 = 20 3.
37.5
. .

. .
. . 21. Draw angle γ = 99.6◦ . Note, there is exactly
. . 28.6
.h . one triangle since 12.4 > 10.3.
. .
◦ . .
32.7 . α2 .
. A
B . .
@ . . . . 12.4
. .
C
@ . .
and . . .
.
@ . .
. 10.3 @ . .
37.5 . @ 99.6 ◦ . .
. . .

. @ .
. 28.6
. C B
α1..

32.7◦

B By the sine law, we obtain
12.4 10.3
Apply the sine law to the acute triangle. =
sin 99.6◦ sin β
28.6 37.5 10.3 sin 99.6◦
= sin β =
sin 32.7◦ sin α2 12.4
37.5 sin 32.7◦ sin β ≈ 0.819
sin α2 =
28.6 β = sin−1 (0.819) ≈ 55.0◦ .
sin α2 ≈ 0.708
−1
α2 = sin (0.708) ≈ 45.1◦ So α = 180◦ − (55.0◦ + 99.6◦ ) = 25.4◦ .

Using the sine law, we find 24. Let x be the distance of the final leg.
12.4
a= sin 25.4◦ ≈ 5.4. .
.
sin 99.6◦ .
. .
.
. 400 . . ... . . . . . .
.
22. Draw angle α = 75.3◦ and let h be the height. . ◦
. @ α 72 .
.
. 56 ◦ .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . @
@
. . .
. XX γ .
X
. .
. XXX .
β .
@
C x X XX@ .
. .
. .38
X
◦
. . . . . . .X..
.X
@
9.8 . .
. .
. .
. . 12.4
.h .
. .
◦ . . There is a 72◦ angle because of the 162◦
75.3 . β .
.
bearing. There is a 38◦ angle because of

A
the 308◦ bearing. Since β + 38◦ = 72◦ ,
β = 34◦ . Since opposite angles are equal,
So h = 9.8 sin 75.3◦ ≈ 9.5. Since a > h γ = 38◦ . So α = 52◦ . Using the sine law,
and a > 9.8, there is exactly one triangle.
x 400
By the sine law, we find = .
sin 52◦ sin 34◦
9.8 12.4
= Then x ≈ 563.7 miles.
sin β sin 75.3◦
9.8 sin 75.3◦ 25. Let x and y be the lengths of the missing sides.
sin β =
12.4
sin β ≈ 0.7645
.
.........
β = sin−1 (0.7645) ≈ 49.9◦ . . H . H .
. . 480 .
. y
◦ . ◦ HH .
. 21 .36 HH.. . . . .
. . α
So γ = 180◦ − (49.9◦ + 75.3◦ ) = 54.8◦ .

. β (((( ..
(
. (((
c 12.4 . (( 82◦ ..
. (
......... x
((
Since = , we have . .(
(
. .(
. .( .
sin 54.8 ◦ sin 75.3◦
12.4
c = sin 54.8◦ · ≈ 10.5.
sin 75.3◦
There is a 21◦ angle because of the S21◦ W
23. Let x be the number of miles flown along I-20. direction. There are 36◦ and 82◦ angles
. because opposite angles are equal and because
.
.
. of the directions N 36◦ W and N 82◦ E.
.H Note α = 180◦ − (82◦ + 36◦ ) = 62◦ and
. H
. β = 180 − (21◦ + 36◦ + 62◦ ) = 61◦ .
.
. 50◦ HH
H
12 ◦
30 .
. HH By the sine law, we find
.
.
◦
HH
60 . 40◦ HH
. 480
sin 57◦ ≈ 460.27
H
x x=
sin 61◦
and
480
Applying the sine law, we obtain y= sin 62◦ ≈ 484.57.
sin 61◦
x 12
◦
= . The perimeter is x + y + 480 ≈ 1425 ft.
sin 80 sin 40◦
Then x ≈ 18.4 miles.

26. Let x be the distance Jill sailed. b) In the picture in part a), let θ be the angle
at A. Using the sine law, we find
.@
.
x ◦ . @ sin θ sin(120◦ )
9 . ◦
. 4 @ =
. 93, 000, 000 93, 003, 950
.
.
@
. α @
93, 000, 000 sin(120◦ )

. @ θ = sin −1
2 93, 003, 950
θ ≈ 59.99579◦ .
Note that α = 86◦ . By the sine law,
Suppose the sun is overhead at noon and
2 x
= . Then x ≈ 8.9 miles. the earth rotates 15◦ every hour. Then
sin 13◦ sin 86◦ the number of hours since 12 noon is
27. Applying the sine law, we find 59.99579
≈ 3.999719.
15
19.2 sin 82◦
x= ≈ 38.0 ft. Thus, when the angle of elevation is 30◦ ,
sin 30◦
the time is 1 second before 4:00 p.m.
28. a) Consider the triangle where A is the center c) In the triangle in part a), at sunset the
of the earth, B is a point on the surface angle at B is 90◦ . If ds is the
of the earth, and C is a point on the distance through the atmosphere at
atmosphere. sunset, then
C `` d2s + 39502 = 39602

B
A ` √
A or d = 39602 − 39502 ≈ 281 miles.
A
A
A 29. Let h be the height of the tower.
A
A H
J HH
J H
HH
The angle at B is 120◦ . Let γ be the angle J H
at C. Using the Sine Law, we obtain h J HH
J H
J HH
H
3960 3950 J H
= 19.3◦J 18.1◦HHH
sin 120◦ sin γ J
a 32.5
3950 sin 120◦
sin γ =
3960
γ ≈ 59.75◦ . Using right triangle trigonometry, we get
h
The angle at A is α = 60◦ − γ ≈ 0.25◦ . tan 19.3◦ =
a
Then d is given by
or
3960 d h
≈ a= .
sin 120◦ sin α tan 19.3◦
3960 sin α Similarly, we have
d ≈
sin 120◦ h
d ≈ 19.9 miles. tan 18.1◦ = .
a + 32.5

Then The remaining angles are β = 153.435◦

and ω = 12.529◦ . By the sine law, we obtain
tan 18.1◦ (a + 32.5) = h
a tan 18.1◦ + 32.5 tan 18.1◦ = h AB 14
=
sin 153.435◦ sin 12.529◦
h
· tan 18.1◦ + 32.5 tan 18.1◦ = h
tan 19.3◦ and
BC 14
tan 18.1◦ ◦
= .
h· + 32.5 tan 18.1◦ = h. sin 14.036 sin 12.529◦
tan 19.3◦ Then AB ≈ 28.9 ft and BC ≈ 15.7 ft.
Solving for h, we find that the height of the
tower is 32. Let x be the distance up the hill.
h ≈ 159.4 ft. .
.
.
◦.
30. Let h be the height of the building. x 26.
.
.
.

◦ .
36 118◦ . 62◦
........
H
J HH
J HH 400
J HH
h J HH
J H
J HH By the sine law, we obtain
H
J H
◦
30.4 J 23.2◦HHH x 400
J ◦
= .
a 55.4 sin 118 sin 26◦
Then x ≈ 805.7 ft, and yes the tree
By using right triangle trigonometry, we get will have to be excavated.
h h 33. By the sine law, we get
tan 30.4◦ = or a = . Similarly,
a tan 30.4◦
h 24 sin 47◦
we have tan 23.2◦ = . Then x= ≈ 18.1 in.
a + 55.4 sin 104◦
tan 23.2◦ (a + 55.4) = h 34. Consider the right triangle where A is a
a tan 23.2◦ + 55.4 tan 23.2◦ = h point on the surface of the earth.
h
· tan 23.2◦ + 55.4 tan 23.2◦ = h C B
tan 30.4◦ A
tan 23.2◦ A
h· + 55.4 tan 23.2◦ = h. A
tan 30.4◦ A
Solving for h, we find that the height of the A
A
building is h ≈ 88.1 ft. A
31. Note, tan γ = 6/12 and γ = tan−1 (0.5) ≈
26.565◦ . Also, tan α = 3/12 and The distance AC that the sunlight passes
α = tan−1 (0.25) ≈ 14.036◦ . 10
is given by AC = = 20 miles.
cos 60◦
B
ω
α β γ
A 14 C 20

35. Let t be the number of seconds since the the angle 6 ABC is 110◦ . Using the law of
cruise missile was spotted. sines, the angle θ is given by
17t 60t
B C =
sin θ sin 110◦
17 60

= ◦
sin θ sin 110
17 sin 110◦

35◦
θ = sin−1
60
A D θ ≈ 15.4◦ .
37. Let t be the number of seconds it takes the fox

Let β be the angle at B. The angle formed
to catch the rabbit. The distances travelled by
by BAC is 180◦ − 35◦ − β. After t seconds,
t the fox and rabbit are indicated below.
the cruise missile would have traveled 548
3600 C
t
miles and the projectile 688 miles. Using
3600
the law of sines, we have fox: 6.5t

rabbit: 3.5t
548t 688t
120◦
3600 = 3600
sin(145◦ − β) sin 35◦ B 30
548 688
=
sin(145◦ − β) sin 35◦ Apply the sine law as follows:
548 sin 35◦

β = 145◦ − sin−1 6.5t 3.5t
688 =
sin 120◦ sin B
β ≈ 117.8◦ . √
3.5 3
sin B =
Then angle BAC is 27.2◦ .
The angle of 13
√
elevation of the projectile must be Note, C = 60◦ − arcsin 3.5 3
. Then
13
angle DAB which is 62.2◦ (= 35◦ + 27.2◦ ).
30 3.5t
36. Let t be the number of seconds since Smith =
sin C sin B
threw the ball.
30 sin B
t = = 7.5
C 3.5 sin C
@ It will take 7.5 sec to catch the rabbit.
@
@ B

@
38. Let t be the number of seconds it takes the fox

@ to catch the rabbit. The distances travelled by
@ the fox and rabbit are indicated below.
@
@ C
θ @

@

60◦ 50◦@
@ fox: 6.5t
A

rabbit: 3.5(t + 1)
120◦

After t seconds, Jones would have ran 17t feet B 30
and the ball would have covered 60t feet. Note,

Apply the sine law as follows: 45. a) Odd b) Even
3.5(t + 1) 6.5t c) Even d) Even

=
sin B sin 120◦ 46. Not an identity, for equation is not true
√ if x = π/2.
7 3 1

sin B = 1+
26 t 47. Triangle 4ABC is an isosceles triangle. Also,
√ 4ACD and 4ABD are isosceles triangles.
Note, C = 60◦ − arcsin 7 3
26 1+ 1
t . Then AC = AD = 2. We apply the Angle
Then Bisector Theorem in Exercise 50.
30 6.5t CD + 2 2
= = .
sin C sin 120◦ 2 CD
30 13t √
√ = √ Solving for CD, we find CD = 5 − 1.
7 3 1 3
sin 60◦ − arcsin 26 1+ t
48. Since 640, 000 = 210 ·54 , we have either x = 210
Using a solver from a calculator, the solution and y = 54 , or x = 54 and y = 210 . In either
to the above equation is case, |x − y| = 399.
t ≈ 8.37 sec
5.1 Pop Quiz
which is the time it will take the fox to catch
the rabbit. 1. γ = 180◦ − 8◦ − 121◦ = 51◦
3π √
41. a) 1 b) c) − 3 2. Note, γ = 180◦ − 20.4◦ − 27.3◦ = 132.3◦ .
4
√ Using the sine law, we find
2 3 √ π
d) − e) − 2 f) − a 38.5
3 6 = .
sin 20.4◦ sin 132.3◦
42. γ = 90◦ − 12◦ = 78◦ ; by the sine law we find
Then
b=
3.2
≈ 15.4 ft 38.5 sin 20.4◦
a= ≈ 18.1.
sin 12◦ sin 132.3◦
and 3. Using the sine law, we obtain
3.2 sin 78◦
c= ≈ 15.1 ft
sin 12◦ sin β sin 33.5◦
=
2π 2π 10.6 7.4
43. a) =2 b)
π 3 10.6 sin 33.5◦
π 1 2π sin β = .
c) = d) =π 7.4
2π 2 2
√ Then
113
10.6 sin 33.5◦
p
1 + (7/8)2 =

44. Note, sec α = . −1
8 β = sin ≈ 52.2◦
√ 7.4
8 8 113
Then cos α = √ = and or
113 113
s 2 r √
10.6 sin 33.5◦

◦ −1
8 49 7 113 ≈ 127.8◦

sin α = 1− √ = = β = 180 − sin
113 113 7.4
113

4. Let h be the height of the tree. The figure below 5.2 Exercises
is not drawn to scale.
1. law of cosines
H
JH 2. triangle inequality
J HHH
J HH 3. cosines
h J H
J HH 4. longest
Jx
H
HH
J H 5. By the cosine law, we obtain
25◦ J 20◦ HHH p
J c= 3.12 + 2.92 − 2(3.1)(2.9) cos 121.3◦
50
≈ 5.23 ≈ 5.2. By the sine law, we find
3.1 5.23
Using the law of sines, we obtain =
sin α sin 121.3◦
x 50 3.1 sin 121.3◦
= sin α =
sin 20◦ sin 5◦ 5.23
50 sin 20◦ sin α ≈ 0.50647
x = . α ≈ sin−1 (0.50647) ≈ 30.4◦ .
sin 5◦
Using right triangle trigonometry, we find Then β = 180◦ − (30.4◦ + 121.3◦ ) = 28.3◦ .
h 6. By the cosine law, we get

sin 25◦ = . p
x a= 11.42 + 10.32 − 2(11.4)(10.3) cos 40.2◦
Then ≈ 7.53 ≈ 7.5. By the sine law,
50 sin 20◦ 10.3 7.53
h = x sin 25◦ = sin 25◦ ≈ 83 ft. =
sin 5◦ sin β sin 40.2◦
10.3 sin 40.2◦
For Thought sin β =
7.53
sin β ≈ 0.8829
1. True, since cos 90◦ = 0 in the law of cosines.
√ β ≈ sin−1 (0.8829) ≈ 62.0◦ .
2. False, a = c2 + b2 − 2bc cos α.
Then γ = 180◦ − (62◦ + 40.2◦ ) = 77.8◦ .
3. False, c2 = a2 + b2 − 2ab cos γ.
7. By the cosine law, we find
4. True, this follows from the sine law. 6.12 + 5.22 − 10.32
cos β = ≈ −0.6595
2(6.1)(5.2)
5. False, it has only one solution in [0◦ , 180◦ ].
and so
6. True, since the sum of the angles is 180◦ .
β ≈ cos−1 (−0.6595) ≈ 131.3◦ .
7. True, since β = sin−1 (0.1235) or
By the sine law,
β = 180◦ − sin−1 (0.1235).
6.1 10.3
8. True, since the law of cosines will be used and =
sin α sin 131.3◦
cosine is a one-to-one function in [0◦ , 180◦ ]. 6.1 sin 131.3◦
sin α =
3.42 + 4.22 − 8.12 10.3
9. True, since cos γ = ≈ −1.27 sin α ≈ 0.4449
2(3.4)(4.2)
has no real solution γ. α ≈ sin−1 (0.4449) ≈ 26.4◦ .
10. False, there is exactly one triangle. So γ = 180◦ − (26.4◦ + 131.3◦ ) = 22.3◦ .

5.2 The Law of Cosines 245
8. By the cosine law, we obtain 12. By the cosine law,

7.92 + 6.52 − 13.62 30.42 + 28.92 − 31.62
cos γ = ≈ −0.7819 cos γ = ≈ 0.433.
2(7.9)(6.5) 2(30.4)(28.9)
and so So γ = cos−1 (0.433) ≈ 64.3◦ .
γ ≈ cos−1 (−0.7819) ≈ 141.4◦ . By the sine law,
28.9 31.6
By the sine law, we have =
sin β sin 64.3◦
6.5 13.6 28.9 sin 64.3◦
= sin β =
sin α sin 141.4◦ 31.6
6.5 sin 141.4◦ sin β ≈ 0.824
sin α =
13.6 β ≈ sin−1 (0.824) ≈ 55.5◦
sin α ≈ 0.29818
α ≈ sin−1 (0.29818) ≈ 17.3◦ So α = 180◦ − (55.5◦ + 64.3◦ ) = 60.2◦
Also, β = 180◦ − (17.3◦ + 141.4◦ ) = 21.3◦ . 13. By the cosine law, we obtain
p
a= 9.32 + 12.22 − 2(9.3)(12.2) cos 30◦
9. By the cosine law,
b=
p
2.42 + 6.82 − 2(2.4)(6.8) cos 10.5◦ ≈ 6.23 ≈ 6.2 and
6.232 + 9.32 − 12.22
≈ 4.46167 ≈ 4.5 and cos γ = ≈ −0.203.
2(6.23)(9.3)
2.42 + 4.461672 − 6.82
cos α = ≈ −0.96066. So γ = cos−1 (−0.203) ≈ 101.7◦ and
2(2.4)(4.46167)
β = 180◦ − (101.7◦ + 30◦ ) = 48.3◦ .
So α = cos−1 (−0.96066) ≈ 163.9◦ and
γ = 180◦ − (163.9◦ + 10.5◦ ) = 5.6◦ 14. By the cosine law, we find
p
10. By the cosine law, b= 10.32 + 8.42 − 2(10.3)(8.4) cos 88◦
p
c= 1.32 + 14.92 − 2(1.3)(14.9) cos 9.8◦ ≈ 13.1, and by using the exact value
≈ 13.62 ≈ 13.6 and of b we find
!
14.92 + 13.622 − 1.32 −1 b2 + 8.42 − 10.32
cos α = ≈ 0.99987. α = cos ≈ 52.0◦
2(14.9)(13.62) 2b(8.4)
So α = cos−1 (0.99987) ≈ 0.9◦ and and γ ≈ 180◦ − (52.0◦ + 88◦ ) ≈ 40.0◦ .
β = 180◦ − (0.9◦ + 9.8◦ ) = 169.3◦ .
11. By the cosine law, 6.32 + 6.82 − 7.12
12.22 + 8.12 − 18.52 cos β = ≈ 0.4146.
cos α = ≈ −0.6466. 2(6.3)(6.8)
2(12.2)(8.1)
So β = cos−1 (0.4146) ≈ 65.5◦ .
Then α = cos−1 (−0.6466) ≈ 130.3◦ . By the sine law, we have
By the sine law,
6.8 7.1
12.2 18.5 =
= sin γ sin 65.5◦
sin β sin 130.3◦
12.2 sin 130.3◦ 6.8 sin 65.5◦
sin β = sin γ =
18.5 7.1
sin β ≈ 0.5029 sin γ ≈ 0.8715
β ≈ sin−1 (0.5029) ≈ 30.2◦ γ ≈ sin−1 (0.8715) ≈ 60.6◦ .
So γ = 180◦ − (30.2◦ + 130.3◦ ) = 19.5◦ So α = 180◦ − (60.6◦ + 65.5◦ ) = 53.9◦ .

16. By the cosine law, 21. One triangle exists. The angles are uniquely
4.12 + 6.22− 9.82 determined by the law of cosines.
cos β = ≈ −0.8023.
2(4.1)(6.2) 22. One triangle exists. The angles are uniquely
So β = cos−1 (−0.8023) ≈ 143.4◦ . determined by the law of cosines.
By the sine law, we find
23. There is no such triangle since the sum of
6.2
=
9.8 the angles in a triangle is 180◦ .
sin γ sin 143.4◦
24. There is no such triangle since the sum of the
6.2 sin 143.4◦
sin γ = two given angles exceeds 180◦ .
9.8
◦ 25. Exactly one triangle exists. This is seen by
−1 6.2 sin 143.4

γ = sin
9.8 constructing a 179◦ -angle with two sides that
◦ have lengths 1 and 10. The third side is con-
γ ≈ 22.2 .
structed by joining the endpoints of the first
Then α = 180◦ − (22.2◦ + 143.4◦ ) = 14.4◦ . two sides.
17. Note, α = 180◦ − 25◦ − 35◦ = 120◦ . 26. Exactly one triangle exists. This is seen by
Then by the sine law, we obtain constructing a 2◦ -angle with two sides that
have lengths 10 and 4. The third side is con-
7.2 b c structed by joining the endpoints of the first
◦
= ◦
=
sin 120 sin 25 sin 35◦ two sides.
from which we have
27. Consider the figure below.
7.2 sin 25◦
b= ≈ 3.5 A
sin 120◦ .
b = 8 ..

and .
.
7.2 sin 35◦ .h
.
≈ 4.8.

c= 45◦
.
sin 120◦ .
.
18. Note, β = 180◦ − 120◦ − 20◦ = 40◦ . C
Then by the sine law, we obtain
√
12.3 a c Note, h = 8 sin 45◦ = 4 2. So the minimum
= = value of c so√that we will be able to make a
sin 40◦ sin 20◦ sin 120◦
triangle is 4 2. Since c = 2, no such triangle
from which we have is possible.
12.3 sin 20◦
a= ≈ 6.5 28. Consider the figure below.
sin 40◦
.
C
and
b = 1 ..

12.3 sin 120◦
c= ≈ 16.6. .
.
sin 40◦ .h
.
60◦ .
19. There is no such triangle. Note, a + b = c and .
.
in a triangle the sum of the lengths of two sides A
is greater than the length of the third side.
√
20. There is no such triangle. Note, a + c < b and 3
Note, h = sin 60◦ = . So the minimum
in a triangle the sum of the lengths of two sides 2
is greater than the length of the third side. value of a so that we will be able to make

√ √
3 3 34. After 3 hours, Andrea flew a distance of 540
a triangle is . Since a = , exactly one
2 2 miles and Carlos flew 720 miles. Let x be the
triangle exists and it is a right triangle. distance between them after 3 hrs.
29. Recall, a central angle α in a circle

√ of radius r .
intercepts a chord of length r 2 − 2 cos α. . 80◦ (540 ((
. ((( ((
.
Since r = 30 and α = 19◦ , the length is ,◦..
(

30
, .
√ , .
30 2 − 2 cos 19◦ ≈ 9.90 ft. 720, .
,
, x
,
30. Recall, a central angle α in a circle
√ of radius r ,

intercepts a chord of length r 2 − 2 cos α. ,
Since r = 3 and α = 20◦ , the length is
√
3 2 − 2 cos 20◦ ≈ 1.04 miles. The obtuse angle in the triangle is 130◦ .
By the cosine law, we obtain
31. Note, a central angle α in a circle
√ of radius r
p
x = 7202 + 5402 − 2(720)(540) cos 130◦ =
intercepts a chord of length r 2 − 2 cos α. √
810, 000 − 777, 600 cos 130◦ ≈ 1144.5 miles.
Since
√
921 = r 2 − 2 cos 72◦ 35. By the cosine law, we find
(where 360 ÷ 5 = 72), we obtain 1.22 + 1.22 − 0.42
cos α =
921 2(1.2)(1.2)
r=√ ≈ 783.45 ft. cos α ≈ 0.9444
2 − 2 cos 72◦
α ≈ cos−1 (0.9444)
32. Note, a central angle α in a circle α ≈ 19.2◦ .
√ of radius r
chord of length r 2 − 2 cos α.
intercepts a √
Since 10 = r 2 − 2 cos 60◦ (where 36. Let x be the length of the guy wire.
360 ÷ 6 = 60), we get
!
!!
x ! 6
10 !! β
r=√ = 10 ft. !!
2 − 2 cos 60◦ !! .
α .
!! 10 .
◦ .
. . . . . . .28
!
. .!
! .................
33. After 6 hours, Jan hiked a distance of 24 miles
and Dean hiked 30 miles. Let x be the distance
between them after 6 hrs.
Note α = 62◦ and β = 118◦ .
hhhh
H hhhh x By the cosine law,
H p
x = 102 + 62 − 2(10)(6) cos 118◦ =
HH hhhh
. hhhh
H . √
.
HH h
136 − 120 cos 118◦ ≈ 13.9 ft.

H .
30 H 31◦ . 12◦

HH . 24
H .
37. Let α, β, and γ be the angles at pipes A, B,
and C. The length of the sides of the triangle
are 5, 6, and 7. By the cosine law,
By the cosine law, we find
52 + 6 2 − 72
cos α =
p
x = 302 + 242 − 2(30)(24) cos 43◦ = 2(5)(6)
√
1476 − 1440 cos 43◦ ≈ 20.6 miles. cos α = 0.2

α = cos−1 (0.2) 41. The pentagon consists of 5 chords each of

α ≈ 78.5 . ◦ 360◦
which intercepts a = 72◦ angle.
5
By the sine law, By the cosine law, the length of a chord is
6 7 given by
=
sin β sin 78.5◦
sin β ≈ 0.8399
q
102 + 102 − 2(10)(10) cos 72◦ =
−1
β ≈ sin (0.8399)
◦
β ≈ 57.1 . √
200 − 200 cos 72◦ ≈ 11.76 m.
Then γ = 180◦ − (57.1◦ + 78.5◦ ) = 44.4◦ .
42. By the cosine law, we obtain
38. Let x be the distance the target has moved
from the time it was fired to the time it was 52 + 52 − 12
cos α =
hit. By the cosine law, 2(5)(5)
p
x = 9242 + 8202 − 2(924)(820) cos 9◦ = 49
√ cos α =
1, 526, 176 − 1, 515, 360 cos 9◦ ≈ 171.7 m. 50
α = cos−1 (49/50)
p α ≈ 11.5◦ .
AB = 5.32 + 7.62 − 2(5.3)(7.6) cos 28◦ =
√
85.85 − 80.56 cos 28◦ ≈ 3.8 miles. 43. The lower-left corner is the origin (0, 0).
By using the exact value of AB, we get
AB 2 + 5.32 − 7.62 ...........

30 P
cos(6 CBA) = . PP
2(AB)(5.3) . Z PPα
Z
. θ1 Z
. PP
! . γ PPP
AB 2 + 5.32 − 7.62 . Z
6 CBA = cos −1 . Z PP
PP (36,8)
2(AB)(5.3) . Z
. PP
. Z
. Z P

6 CBA ≈ 111.6◦ .
.
Z
Z β
.
. Z . .θ
.
Z
and 6 CAB = 180◦ − (111.6◦ + 28◦ ) = 40.4◦ . . . .2
. .
.
40. By the cosine law, one finds ..............................
1.0172 = .1332 + .8942 − 2(.133)(.894) cos α

.1332 + .8942 − 1.0172 Note tan α = 22/36 and
cos α =
2(.133)(.894)
! α = tan−1 (22/36) ≈ 31.4◦ .
.1332 + .8942
− 1.0172
α = cos−1
2(.133)(.894) The distance between (36, 8) and (0, 30) is ap-
proximately 42.19. By the cosine law,
α ≈ 156◦
!
−1 302 + 302 − 42.192
and θ ≈ 180◦ − 156◦ = 24◦ . β = cos
2(30)(30)
β ≈ 89.4◦ .
So θ2 = 180◦ − 89.4◦ = 90.6◦ .

By the sine law, we find c) Yes, even in perfect alignment a total

30 42.19 eclipse may not occur, for instance
= when β = 0.49◦ and α = 0.52◦ .
sin γ sin 89.4◦
30 sin 89.4◦ 46. a) Let αm and αM be the minimum and

γ = sin−1 ≈ 45.3◦ . maximum values of α (diameters of
42.19
Jupiter), respectively. By the law of
Then θ1 = 90◦ − (45.3◦ + 31.4◦ ) = 13.3◦ . cosines, one obtains

44. Since the arc length s = 2.5 mm intercepts 2(7.406 × 108 )2 − (1.39 × 106 )2
αM = cos−1
an arc α, we have 2.5 = 10α or α = 0.25. 2(7.406 × 108 )2
Then a flat side of the shaft intercepts an angle
or αM ≈ 0.11◦ , and
with measurement
2π − 3(0.25) −1 2(8.160 × 108 )2 − (1.39 × 106 )2
αm = cos
≈ 1.844 radians. 2(8.160 × 108 )2
3
By the cosine law, the length of a flat side is or αm ≈ 0.10◦ .
b) Let β be the diameter of Callisto.
q
102 + 102 − 2(10)(10) cos(1.844) ≈ 15.94 mm.
By the law of cosines, one obtains
45. a) Let αm and αM be the minimum and !
maximum values of α, respectively. −1 2(1.884 × 106 )2 − (2420)2
β = cos
By the law of cosines, we get 2(1.884 × 106 )2
865, 0002 = 2(91, 400, 000)2 −2(91, 400, 000)2 cos αM . or
Then β ≈ 0.07◦ .
!
−1 2(91400000)2 − 8650002 c) No, a total eclipse is not possible since
αM = cos
2(91400000)2 Callisto is too small.
αM ≈ 0.54◦ .
47. Let db and dh be the distance from the bear
Likewise, and hiker, respectively, to the base of the
tower. Then db = 150 tan 80◦ and
!
2(94500000)2 − 8650002
αm = cos−1 dh = 150 tan 75◦ .
2(94500000)2
αm ≈ 0.52◦ . Since the line segments joining the base of the
tower to the bear and hiker form a 45◦ angle,
b) Let βm and βM be the minimum and by the cosine law the distance, d, between the
maximum values of β, respectively. By
bear and the hiker is
the law of cosines, one obtains
q
21632 = 2(225, 800)2 − 2(225, 800)2 cos βM . d = d2b + d2h − 2(db )(dh ) cos 45◦

Then ≈ (850.69)2 + (559.81)2 −
!
2(225800)2 − 21632 2(850.69)(559.81) cos 45◦ )1/2
βM = cos−1
2(225800)2
≈ 603 feet.
βM ≈ 0.55◦ .
Likewise, 48. Let t be the number of hours since midnight.
! Since the smuggler’s have been riding for t
2(252000)2 − 21632
βm = cos−1 hours and the DEA boat for t − 1 hours, then
2(252000)2
βm ≈ 0.49◦ . (20(t − 1))2 = (20t)2 + 802 − 2(20t)(80) cos 40◦ .

Subtracting 400t2 from both sides, one obtains Note, h = 112.6 sin 22.5◦ ≈ 4.8. Since h < a =
5.1 < 12.6 = b, there are two triangles.
−800t + 400 = 6400 − 3200t cos 40◦
(3200 cos 40◦ − 800)t = 6000 53. Since the y-values of the key points are 3 ± 2,
6000 we find A = 2 and D = 3. Since the first key
t = point is (π/4, 3), the phase shift is C = π/4.
3200 cos 40◦ − 800
t ≈ 3.63 hours. Since the difference between the first and last
y-values is the period, we find
The interception occured at 3:38 a.m. since
2π 5π π
(0.63)60 ≈ 38. = − =π
B 4 4
The distances covered by the DEA’s and smug-
gler’s boats are 20(2.63) miles and 20(3.63) and B = 2. The equation is
miles, respectively. π

y = 2 sin 2 x − +3
To find θ, we use the sine law. Then 4
20(2.63) 20(3.63) 54. Since A = θr2 /2, we
=
sin 40◦ sin θ
π r2
2.63 3.63 64π =
= 16 2
sin 40◦ sin θ √
or r2 = 322 (2). Then r = 32 2 in.
3.63 sin 40◦

−1
θ = sin π 3π π 7π
2.63 55. a) 270◦ · = b) 315◦ · =
180◦ 2 180 ◦ 4
θ ≈ 62.5◦ . π 7π π 2π
◦ ◦
c) − 210 · =− d) 120 · =
49. Using the cosine law, we obtain 180◦ 6 180◦ 3
p
r
1 − cos θ 56. The linear velocity is
a = 2r2 − 2r2 cos(θ) = 4r2 =
2 3200(2π)(3)(60)
2r sin(θ/2). v = ωr = ≈ 685.4 mph
5280
50. If the second largest side were opposite an 57. When a point on a circle with radius r is ro-
obtuse angle, then the triangle would have two tated through an angle of π/2, the distance
obtuse sides and the angles would add up to the point rotates is
more than 180◦ . π
s=r .
51. Note, γ = 180◦ − 108.1◦ − 18.6◦ = 53.3◦ . 2
By the sine law, we obtain The sum of the distances traveled by point A
28.6 sin 108.1◦ is
a= ≈ 33.9 √
sin 53.3◦ √ π π π (3 5 + 9)π
28.6 sin 18.6◦ 45 + 3 + 0 + 6 = ft.
b= ≈ 11.4 2 2 2 2
sin 53.3◦
58. Since√
radius r = 6 and the length of a chord is
c = 6 3, we find
C √
. c = r 2 − 2 cos α
b = 12.6 ..

. √ √
. 6 3 = 6 2 − 2 cos α
.h
.
22.5◦
.
. 1
. cos α = −
A 2
α = 120◦ , 240◦ .

5.3 Area of a Triangle 251
p p
The length of the shorter arc is x2 + (x − 80)2 and x2 + (x − 20)2 ,
respectively. By the cosine law, the angle α
2π
s = rα = 6 × = 4π. is given by
3
!
−1 x2 + (x − 80)2 + x2 + (x − 20)2 − 602
cos p p
5.2 Pop Quiz 2 x2 + (x − 80)2 x2 + (x − 20)2
1. Using the cosine law, we find or equivalently

q !
c= 8.12 + 10.42 − 2(8.1)(10.4) cos 12.3◦ ≈ 3.0. −1 x2 − 50x + 800
cos √ √
x2 − 80x + 3200 x2 − 20x + 200
2. Using the cosine law, we obtain
! and a sketch of its graph is shown.
62 + 72 − 122 y
γ = cos−1 ≈ 134.6◦ .
2(6)(7)
3. The triangle inequality fails since a = 6 plus 60

c = 5 is not greater than b = 12. Then no
triangle exists. 8 x
15.4 28 51.9
4. Using the cosine law, the length of the chord is
q
2(8.7)2 − 2(8.7)2 cos 42.1◦ ≈ 6.2 ft.
d) Since α = 60◦ when x ≈ 15.4, 51.9, then the
viewing angle is greater than 60◦ when
5.2 Linking Concepts 15.4 < x < 51.9.
a) From the point (30, 10), the distance to the e) The largest viewing angle α is seen from
top of the screen and the bottom of the screen the seat with coordinates (28, 8).
are
q √ √ For Thought
(10 − 60)2 + (30 − 0)2 = 3400 = 10 34 ft
1. False, rather in a right triangle the area is
and one-half the product of its legs.
q √ √
(10 − 0)2 + (30 − 0)2 = 1000 = 10 10 ft,
2. True
respectively.
3. False, rather the area is one-half the
b) Using the law of cosines, one finds that the product of two lengths of two sides and
viewing angle α is given by the sine of the included angle.
4. True
!
−1 3400 + 1000 − 602
α = cos √ √
2 3400 1000
5. True, since one can use Heron’s formula.
α ≈ 77.5◦ .
5.3 Exercises
c) Note, the coordinates of any seat is of the form
(x, x − 20) for some real number x ≥ 20. The 1. bh/2
distances of this seat from the top of the
screen and bottom of the screen are 2. Heron’s

19.7 sin 74.2◦

3. Since two sides and an included angle γ = sin −1
are given, the area is 23.5
1 γ ≈ 53.77◦ .
A = (12.9)(6.4) sin 13.7◦ ≈ 9.8.
2
Then α = 180◦ − (53.77◦ + 74.2◦ ) = 52.03◦ .
4. Since two sides and an included angle 1
are given, the area is The area is A = bc sin α =
2
1 1
A = (42.7)(64.1) sin 74.2◦ ≈ 1316.8. (23.5)(19.7) sin 52.03◦ ≈ 182.5.
2 2
5. Draw angle α = 39.4◦ . 7. Draw angle α = 42.3◦ .
@
12.6

b @

a

γ
@ 13.7 γ
@
@ @

62.1◦ @
@
β 42.3◦
◦
@
39.4 @
@
@
14.7
By the sine law, we obtain Note γ = 180◦ − (42.3◦ + 62.1◦ ) = 75.6◦ .

By the sine law,
12.6 13.7
= b 14.7
sin β sin 39.4◦ =
sin 62.1◦ sin 75.6◦
12.6 sin 39.4◦
sin β = 14.7
13.7 b = · sin 62.1◦
◦ sin 75.6◦
−1 12.6 sin 39.4

β = sin b ≈ 13.41.
13.7
β ≈ 35.7◦ . 1
The area is A = bc sin α =
2
Then γ = 180◦ − (35.7◦ + 39.4◦ ) = 104.9◦ . 1
(13.41)(14.7) sin 42.3◦ ≈ 66.3.
1 2
The area is A = · ab sin γ =
2 8. Draw angle γ = 98.6◦ .
1
· (13.7)(12.6) sin 104.9◦ ≈ 83.4. A
2
P
6. Draw angle β = 74.2◦ . @PPP
@ PP c
PP
@ PP
19.7

@ b @ PP
@ 98.6 ◦ PP
23.5 32.4◦ PPP

α
@
@ @
24.2 B

γ
◦
@
74.2 @
@
Note α = 180◦ − (98.6◦ + 32.4◦ ) = 49◦ .
By the sine law,
By the sine law, we find b 24.2
=
19.7 23.5 sin 32.4◦ sin 49◦
= 24.2
sin γ sin 74.2◦ b = sin 32.4◦
sin 49◦
19.7 sin 74.2◦
sin γ = b ≈ 17.181.
23.5

5.3 Area of a Triangle 253
1 11. Note, the area of the triangle below is

The area is A = ab sin γ =
2
1 √ √
1 · (1.5)(1.5 3) = 1.125 3.
(24.2)(17.18) sin 98.6◦ ≈ 205.6. 2
2
9. Draw angle α = 56.3◦ .

b @

γ @ 9.8

@ √
◦ 41.2◦ @
@ 3 1.5 3
56.3
@
c

60◦
Note γ = 180◦ − (56.3◦ + 41.2◦ ) = 82.5◦ .
By the sine law, we obtain 1.5
c 9.8
= The trapezoid in the problem can be divided
sin 82.5◦ sin 56.3◦
into two triangles√and a rectangle with dimen-
9.8
c = sin 82.5◦ sions 2.7 by 1.5 3. Thus, the area of the
sin 56.3◦ trapezoid is the area of the rectangle plus twice
c ≈ 11.679. the area of the triangle shown above. That is,
1 the area of the trapezoid is
The area is A = ac sin β = √ √ √
2
2.7(1.5 3) + 2(1.125 3) = 6.3 3 ≈ 11 ft2 .
1
(9.8)(11.679) sin 41.2◦ ≈ 37.7.
2
10. Draw angle β = 25.6◦ .

c @
17.3
Z
α
@
@ Z
Z
50.8◦ Z

74.3◦ @
@
25.6◦ Z 4.9
Z 3.5
@ 3.1 Z
a ◦

Z 60.8
Z
90◦ 39.2◦ Z
Z
Note α = 180◦ − (25.6◦ + 74.3◦ ) = 80.1◦ .
Z
3.8
By the sine law, we get
a 17.3 The diagonal 4.9 is obtained by using the
=
sin 80.1◦ sin 25.6◦ Pythagorean Theorem. The angles 39.2◦ and
17.3 50.8◦ can be derived by using right triangle
a = sin 80.1◦
sin 25.6◦ trigonometry.
a ≈ 39.44. The area of the right triangle is
1 1
The area is A = ab sin γ = A1 = (3.1)(3.8) and the area of the adjacent
2 2
1
1 triangle is A2 = (4.9)(3.5) sin 60.8◦ .
(39.44)(17.3) sin 74.3◦ ≈ 328.4. 2
2
The total area is A1 + A2 ≈ 13 yd2 .

13. Divide the given 4-sided polygon into two 5.4 + 8.2 + 12
18. Note, S = = 12.8. The area is
triangles by drawing the diagonal that 2
p
connects the 60◦ angle to the 135◦ angle. 12.8(12.8 − 5.4)(12.8 − 8.2)(12.8 − 12) =
On each triangle two sides and an included
p
12.8(7.4)(4.6)(0.8) ≈ 18.7.
angle are given. The area of the polygon
is equal to the sum of the areas of the 19. Note,
two triangles. Namely, 346 + 234 + 422
1 1 √ √ S= = 501.
(4)(10) sin 120◦ + (12+2 3)(2 6) sin 45◦ = 2
2 2
√ 1 √ √ √ The area is
20( 3/2) + (24 6 + 4 18)( 2/2) = p
501(501 − 346)(501 − 234)(501 − 422) =
2
√ 1 √ √ p
10 3 + (12 12 + 2 36) = 501(155)(267)(79) ≈ 40, 471.9.
2
√ √ √ √ √ 124.8 + 86.4 + 154.2
10 3 + 6 12 + 36 = 10 3 + 12 3 + 6 ≈ 20. Note, S = = 182.7.
2
44 square miles. The area is
p
14. Divide the given 4-sided polygon into two 182.7(182.7 − 124.8) ×
triangles by drawing the diagonal that
p
(182.7 − 86.4)(182.7 − 154.2) =
connects the 89◦ angle to the 109◦ angle. p
182.7(57.9)(96.3)(28.5) ≈ 5388.2.
On each triangle two sides and an included
angle are given. The area of the polygon is 21. Since the base is 20 and the height is 10,
equal to the sum of the areas of the two 1 1
triangles. Namely, the area is bh = (20)(10) = 100.
2 2
1
· (140)(129.44) sin 70◦ + 22. Note, S =
7+8+5
= 10.
2 2
1
· (120)(93.67) sin 92◦ ≈
p
Area is 10(10 − 7)(10 − 8)(10 − 5) =
2 p
14, 131 ft2 . 10(3)(2)(5) ≈ 17.3.
15. Note, 23. Since two sides and an included angle

16 + 9 + 10 are given, the area is
S= = 17.5.
2
1
The area is (6)(8) sin 60◦ ≈ 20.8.
p 2
A= 17.5(17.5 − 16)(17.5 − 9)(17.5 − 10)
=
p
17.5(1.5)(8.5)(7.5) ≈ 40.9. 24. Since the base is 12 and the height is 9,
1 1
12 + 8 + 17 the area is bh = (12)(9) = 54.
16. Note, S = = 18.5. The area is 2 2
2
p 9 + 5 + 12
A = 18.5(18.5 − 12)(18.5 − 8)(18.5 − 17) 25. Note, S = = 13.
p 2
= 18.5(6.5)(10.5)(1.5) ≈ 43.5. p
The area is 13(13 − 9)(13 − 5)(13 − 12) =
17. Note, q
13(4)(8)(1) ≈ 20.4.
3.6 + 9.8 + 8.1
S= = 10.75.
2 26. Since two sides and an included angle are
The area is given, the area is
p
10.75(10.75 − 3.6)(10.75 − 9.8)(10.75 − 8.1) 1
p (9)(15) sin 14◦ ≈ 16.3.
= 10.75(7.15)(0.95)(2.65) ≈ 13.9. 2

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
SCIENCE
THE scientific work of our countrymen has probably evoked less
scepticism on the part of foreign judges than their achievements in
other departments of cultural activity. There is one obvious reason
for this difference. When our letters, our art, our music are criticized
with disdainfully faint commendation, it is because they have failed to
attain the higher reaches of creative effort. Supreme
accomplishment in art certainly presupposes a graduated series of
lesser strivings, yet from what might be called the consumer’s angle,
mediocrity is worthless and incapable of giving inspiration to genius.
But in science it is otherwise. Here every bit of sound work—
however commonplace—counts as a contribution to the stock of
knowledge; and, what is more, on labours of this lesser order the
superior mind is frequently dependent for its own syntheses. A
combination of intelligence, technical efficiency, and application may
not by itself suffice to read the riddles of the universe; but, to change
the metaphor, it may well provide the foundation for the epoch-
makers’ structure. So while it is derogatory to American literature to
be considered a mere reflection of English letters, it is no reflection
on American scientists that they have gone to Europe to acquire that
craftsmanship which is an indispensable prerequisite to fruitful
research. And when we find Alexander von Humboldt praising in
conversation with Silliman the geographical results of Maury and
Frémont, there is no reason to suspect him of perfunctory politeness
to a transatlantic visitor; the veteran scholar might well rejoice in the
ever widening application of methods he had himself aided in
perfecting.
Thus even seventy years ago and more the United States had
by honest, painstaking labour made worthwhile additions to human
knowledge and these contributions have naturally multiplied a
hundredfold with the lapse of years. Yet it would be quite misleading
to make it appear as if the total represented merely a vast
accumulation of uninspired routine jobs. Some years ago, to be sure,
an American writer rather sensationally voiced his discontent with
the paucity of celebrated savants among our countrymen. But he
forgot that in science fame is a very inadequate index of merit. The
precise contribution made by one man’s individual ability is one of
the most tantalizingly difficult things to determine—so much so that
scholars are still debating in what measure Galileo’s predecessors
paved the way for his discoveries in dynamics. For a layman, then,
to appraise the relative significance of this or that intellectual worthy
on the basis of current gossip is rather absurd. Certainly the lack of a
popular reputation is a poor reason for denying greatness to a
contemporary or even near-contemporary scientific thinker. Two
remarkable instances at once come to mind of Americans who have
won the highest distinction abroad yet remain unknown by name to
many of their most cultivated compatriots. Who has ever heard of
Willard Gibbs? Yet he was the recipient of the Copley medal, British
learning’s highest honour, and his phase rule is said to mark an
epoch in the progress of physical chemistry. Again, prior to the Nobel
prize award, who outside academic bowers had ever heard of the
crucial experiment by which a Chicago physicist showed, to quote
Poincaré, “that the physical procedures are powerless to put in
evidence absolute motion”? Michelson’s name is linked with all the
recent speculations on relativity, and he shares with Einstein the fate
of finding himself famous one fine morning through the force of
purely external circumstances.
In even the briefest and most random enumeration of towering
native sons it is impossible to ignore the name of William James.
Here for once the suffrage of town and gown, of domestic and alien
judges, is unanimous. Naturally James can never mean quite the
same to the European world that he means to us, because in the
United States he is far more than a great psychologist, philosopher,
or literary man. Owing to our peculiar spiritual history, he occupies in
our milieu an altogether unique position. His is the solitary example
of an American pre-eminent in a branch of science who at the same
time succeeded in deeply affecting the cultural life of a whole
generation. Further, he is probably the only one of our genuinely
original men to be thoroughly saturated with the essense of old world
civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic, of course, neither of
these characteristics would confer a patent of distinction. Foreign
judgment of James’s psychological achievement was consequently
not coloured by external considerations, and it is all the more
remarkable that the “Principles of Psychology” was so widely and by
such competent critics acclaimed as a synthesis of the first order.
Without attempting to exhaust the roster of great names, I must
mention Simon Newcomb and his fellow-astronomer, George W. Hill,
both Copley medallists. Newcomb, in particular, stood out as the
foremost representative of his science in this country, honoured here
and abroad alike for his abstruse original researches into the motion
of the moon and the planetary system and for his effective
popularization. Henry Augustus Rowland, the physicist, was another
of our outstanding men—one, incidentally, whose measure was
taken in Europe long before his greatness dawned upon his
colleagues at home. He is celebrated, among other things, for
perfecting an instrument of precision and for a new and more
accurate determination of the mechanical equivalent of heat. Among
geologists Grove Karl Gilbert, famous for his exploration of Lake
Bonneville—the major forerunner of Great Salt Lake—and his
investigations of mountain structure, stands forth as one of our pre-
eminent savants. Even those who, like the present writer, enjoyed
merely casual contact with that grand old man could not fail to gain
the impression that now they knew what a great scientist looked like
in the flesh and to feel that such a one would be a fit member of any
intellectual galaxy anywhere.
If from single individuals we turn to consider currents of scientific
thought, the United States again stands the trial with flying colours. It
can hardly be denied that in a number of branches our countrymen
are marching in the vanguard. “Experimental biology,” said a
German zoologist some time before the War, “is pre-eminently an
American science.” Certainly one need merely glance at German or
British manuals to learn how deeply interpretations of basic
evolutionary phenomena have been affected by the work of
Professor T. H. Morgan and his followers. In psychology it is true that
no one wears the mantle of William James, but there is effective
advancement along a number of distinct lines. Thorndike’s tests
marked an era in the annals of animal psychology, supplanting with a
saner technique the slovenly work of earlier investigators.
Experimental investigation of mental phenomena generally, of
individual variability and behaviour in particular, flourishes in a
number of academic centres. In anthropology the writings of Lewis
H. Morgan have proved a tremendous stimulus to sociological
speculation the world over and still retain their hold on many
European thinkers. They were not, in my opinion, the product of a
great intellect and the scheme of evolution traced by Morgan is
doomed to abandonment. Yet his theories have suggested a vast
amount of thought and to his lasting credit it must be said that he
opened up an entirely new and fruitful field of recondite research
through his painstaking accumulation and discussion of primitive
kinship terminologies.
More recently the anthropological school headed by Professor
Boas has led to a transvaluation of theoretical values in the study of
cultural development, supplanting with a sounder historical insight
the cruder evolutionary speculation of the past. Above all, its founder
has succeeded in perfecting the methodology of every division of the
vast subject, and remains probably the only anthropologist in the
world who has both directly and indirectly furthered ethnological,
linguistic, somatological and archæological investigation. Finally, the
active part played by pathologists like Dr. Simon Flexner in the
experimental study of disease is too well known to require more than
brief mention.
Either in its individual or collective results, American research is
thus very far from being a negligible factor in the scientific life of the
world. Nevertheless, the medal has a reverse side, and he would be
a bold optimist who should sincerely voice complete contentment
either with the status of science in the cultural polity of the nation or
with the work achieved by the average American investigator. Let us,
then, try to face the less flattering facts in the case.
The fundamental difficulty can be briefly summarized by applying
the sociologist’s concept of maladjustment. American science,
notwithstanding its notable achievements, is not an organic product
of our soil; it is an epiphenomenon, a hothouse growth. It is still the
prerogative of a caste, not a treasure in which the nation glories. We
have at best only a nascent class of cultivated laymen who relish
scientific books requiring concentrated thought or supplying large
bodies of fact. This is shown most clearly by the rarity of articles of
this type even in our serious magazines. Our physicians, lawyers,
clergymen and journalists—in short, our educated classes—do not
encourage the publication of reading-matter which is issued in
Europe as a profitable business venture. It is hard to conceive of a
book like Mach’s “Analyse der Empfindungen” running through eight
editions in the United States. Conversely, it is not strange that hardly
any of our first-rate men find it an alluring task to seek an
understanding with a larger audience. Newcomb and James are of
course remarkable exceptions, but they are exceptions. Here again
the contrast with European conditions is glaring. Not to mention the
classic popularizers of the past, England, e.g., can boast even to-day
of such men as Pearson, Soddy, Joly, Hinks—all of them competent
or even distinguished in their professional work yet at the same time
skilful interpreters of their field to a wider public. But for a healthy
cultural life a rapport of this sort between creator and appreciator is
an indispensable prerequisite, and it is not a whit less important in
science than in music or poetry.
The estrangement of science from its social environment has
produced anomalies almost inconceivable in the riper civilizations of
the Old World. Either the scientist loses contact with his
surroundings or in the struggle for survival he adapts himself by a
surrender of his individuality, that is, by more or less disingenuously
parading as a lowbrow and representing himself as a dispenser of
worldly goods. It is quite true that, historically, empirical knowledge
linked with practical needs is earlier than rational science; it is also
true that applied and pure science can be and have been mutual
benefactors. This lesson is an important one and in a country with a
scholastic tradition like Germany it was one that men like Mach and
Ostwald did well to emphasize. But in an age and country where
philosophers pique themselves on ignoring philosophical problems
and psychologists have become experts in advertising technique, the
emphasis ought surely to be in quite the opposite direction, and that,
even if one inclines in general to a utilitarian point of view. For
nothing is more certain than that a penny-wise Gradgrind policy is a
pound-foolish one. A friend teaching in one of our engineering
colleges tells me that owing to the “practical” training received there
the graduates are indeed able to apply formulæ by rote but flounder
helplessly when confronted by a new situation, which drives them to
seek counsel with the despised and underpaid “theoretical”
professor. The plea for pure science offered by Rowland in 1883 is
not yet altogether antiquated in 1921: “To have the applications of a
science, the science itself must exist ... we have taken the science of
the Old World, and applied it to all our uses, accepting it like the rain
of heaven, without asking whence it came, or even acknowledging
the debt of gratitude we owe to the great and unselfish workers who
have given it to us.... To a civilized nation of the present day, the
applications of science are a necessity, and our country has hitherto
succeeded in this line, only for the reason that there are certain
countries in the world where pure science has been and is cultivated,
and where the study of nature is considered a noble pursuit.”
The Bœotian disdain for research as a desirable pursuit is
naturally reflected in the mediocre encouragement doled out to
investigators, who are obliged to do their work by hook or by crook
and to raise funds by the undignified cajolery of wealthy patrons and
a disingenuous argumentum ad hominem. Heaven forbid that money
be appropriated to attack a problem which, in the opinion of the best
experts, calls for solution; effort must rather be diverted to please an
ignorant benefactor bent on establishing a pet theory or fired with the
zeal to astound the world by a sensational discovery.
Another aspect of scientific life in the United States that reflects
the general cultural conditions is the stress placed on organization
and administration as opposed to individual effort. It is quite true that
for the prosecution of elaborate investigations careful allotment of
individual tasks contributory to the general end is important and
sometimes even indispensable. But some of the greatest work in the
history of science has been achieved without regard for the
principles of business efficiency; and whatever advantage may
accrue in the future from administrative devices is negligible in
comparison with the creative thought of scientific men. These, and
only these, can lend value to the machinery of organization, which
independently of them must remain a soulless instrument. The
overweighting of efficiency schemes as compared to creative
personalities is only a symptom of a general maladjustment.
Intimately related with this feature is that cynical flouting of
intellectual values that appears in the customary attitude of trustees
and university presidents towards those who shed lustre on our
academic life. The professional pre-eminence of a scientist may be
admitted by the administrative officials but it is regarded as irrelevant
since the standard of values accepted by them is only remotely, if at
all, connected with originality or learning.
There are, of course, scientists to whom deference is paid even
by trustees, nay, by the wives of trustees; but it will be usually found
that they are men of independent means or social prestige. It is, in
other words, their wealth and position, not their creative work, that
raises them above their fellows. One of the most lamentable results
of this contempt for higher values is the failure to provide for ample
leisure that might be devoted to research. The majority of our
scientists, like those abroad, gain a livelihood by teaching, but few
foreign observers fail to be shocked by the way the energies of their
American colleagues are frittered away on administrative routine and
elementary instruction till neither time nor strength remains for the
advancement of knowledge. But even this does not tell the whole
story, for we must remember that the younger scientists are as a rule
miserably underpaid and are obliged to eke out a living by popular
writing or lecturing, so that research becomes a sheer impossibility. If
Ostwald and Cattell are right in associating the highest productivity
with the earlier years of maturity, the tragic effects of such conditions
as I have just described are manifest.
In justice, however, mention must be made of a number of
institutions permitting scientific work without imposing any obligation
to teach or onerous administrative duties. The U. S. Geological
Survey, the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Institute may serve
as examples. We must likewise remember that different individuals
react quite differently to the necessity for teaching. Some of the most
noted investigators—Rowland, for instance—find a moderate
amount of lecturing positively stimulating. In a utopian republic of
learning such individual variations would be carefully considered in
the allotment of tasks. The association of the Lick Observatory with
the University of California seems to approximate to ideal conditions,
inasmuch as its highly trained astronomers are relieved of all
academic duties but enjoy the privilege of lecturing to the students
when the spirit moves them.
To return to the main question, the maladjustment between the
specific scientific phase of our civilization and the general cultural life
produces certain effects even more serious than those due to
penury, administrative tyranny, and popular indifference, for they are
less potent and do not so readily evoke defence-mechanisms on the
victims’ part. There is, first of all, a curtailment of potential scientific
achievement through the general deficiencies of the cultural
environment.
Much has been said by both propagandists and detractors of
German scholarship about the effects of intensive specialization. But
an important feature commonly ignored in this connection is that in
the country of its origin specialization is a concomitant and
successor of a liberal education. Whatever strictures may be levelled
at the traditional form of this preparatory training—and I have seen it
criticized as severely by German writers as by any—the fact remains
that the German university student has a broad cultural background
such as his American counterpart too frequently lacks; and what is
true of Germany holds with minor qualifications for other European
countries.
A trivial example will serve to illustrate the possible advantages
of a cultural foundation for very specialized research. Music is
notoriously one of the salient features of German culture, not merely
because Germany has produced great composers but because of
the wide appreciation and quite general study of music. Artistically
the knowledge of the piano or violin acquired by the average child in
the typical German home may count for naught, yet in at least two
branches of inquiry it may assume importance. The psychological
aspect of acoustics is likely to attract and to be fruitfully cultivated by
those conversant with musical technique, and they alone will be
capable of grappling with the comparative problems presented by
the study of primitive music—problems that would never occur to the
average Anglo-Saxon field ethnologist, yet to which the German
would apply his knowledge as spontaneously as he applies the
multiplication table to a practical matter of everyday purchase.
As a matter of fact, all the phenomena of the universe are
interrelated and, accordingly, the most important advances may be
expected from a revelation of the less patent connections. For this
purpose a diversity of interests with corresponding variety of
information may be not only a favourable condition but a
prerequisite. Helmholtz may have made an indifferent physician; but
because he combined a medical practitioner’s knowledge with that of
a physicist he was enabled to devise the ophthalmoscope. So it may
be that not one out of ten thousand men who might apply
themselves to higher mathematics would ever be able to advance
mathematical theory, but it is certainly true that the manipulatory skill
acquired would stand them in good stead not only in the exact
sciences but in biology, psychology, and anthropometry, in all of
which the theory of probability can be effectively applied to the
phenomenon of variability.
I do not mean to assert that the average European student is an
Admirable Crichton utilizing with multidexterity the most diverse
methods of research and groups of fact. But I am convinced that
many European workers produce more valuable work than equally
able Americans for the sole reason that the European’s social
heritage provides him with agencies ready-made for detecting
correlations that must inevitably elude a vision narrower because
deprived of the same artificial aid. The remedy lies in enriching the
cultural atmosphere and in insisting on a broad educational training
over and above that devoted to the specialist’s craftsmanship.
Important, however, as variety of information and interests
doubtless are, one factor must take precedence in the scientist’s
equipment—the spirit in which he approaches his scientific work as a
whole. In this respect the point that would probably strike most
European or, at all events, Continental scientists is the rarity in
America of philosophical inquiries into the foundations of one’s
scientific position. The contrast with German culture is of course
sharp, and in many Teutonic works the national bent for
epistemological discussion is undoubtedly carried to a point where it
ceases to be palatable to those not to the manner born. Yet this
tendency has a salutary effect in stimulating that contempt for mere
authority which is indispensable for scientific progress. What our
average American student should acquire above all is a stout faith in
the virtues of reasoned nonconformism, and in this phrase adjective
and noun are equally significant. On one hand, we must condemn
the blind deference with which too many of our investigators accept
the judgments of acknowledged greatness. What can be more
ridiculous, e.g., than to make dogmas of the obiter dicta of a man like
William James, the chief lesson of whose life is a resentment of
academic traditionalism? Or, what shall we think of a celebrated
biologist who decides the problem of Lamarckianism by a careful
weighing not of arguments but of authorities? No one can approve of
the grim ferocity, reminiscent of the literary feuds of Alexander Pope,
with which German savants sometimes debate problems of theoretic
interest. Yet even such billingsgate as Dührring levelled at Helmholtz
is preferable to obsequious discipleship. It testifies, at all events, to
the glorious belief that in the republic of learning fame and position
count for naught, that the most illustrious scientist shall not be free
from the criticism of the meanest Privatdozent, But the
nonconformism should be rational. It is infantile to cling to leading-
strings but it is no less childish to thrust out one’s tongue at doctrines
that happen to disagree with those of one’s own clique. Indeed,
frequently both forms of puerility are combined: it is easy to sneer
with James at Wundt or to assault the selectionists under cover of
De Vries’s mutationism. A mature thinker will forego the short and
easy but misleading road. Following Fechner, he will be cautious in
his belief but equally cautious in his disbelief.
It is only such spiritual freedom that makes the insistence on
academic freedom a matter worth fighting for. After all, what is the
use of a man’s teaching what he pleases, if he quite sincerely retails
the current folk-lore? In one of the most remarkable chapters of the
“Mechanik” Ernst Mach points out that the detriment to natural
philosophy due to the political power of the Church is easily
exaggerated. Science was retarded primarily not because scientists
were driven by outward compulsion to spread such and such views
but because they uncritically swallowed the cud of folk-belief. Voilà
l’ennemi! In the insidious influence of group opinions, whether
countenanced by Church, State or a scientific hierarchy, lies the
basic peril. The philosophic habit of unremitting criticism of one’s
basic assumptions is naturally repugnant to a young and naïve
culture, and it cannot be expected to spring up spontaneously and
flower luxuriantly in science while other departments of life fail to
yield it nurture. Every phase of our civilization must be saturated with
that spirit of positive scepticism which Goethe and Huxley taught
before science can reap a full harvest in her own field. But her
votaries, looking back upon the history of science, may well be
emboldened to lead in the battle, and if the pioneers in the
movement should fail they may well console themselves with
Milton’s hero: “... and that strife was not inglorious, though the event
was dire!”
Robert H. Lowie
PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY is at once a product of civilization and a stimulus
to its development. It is the solvent in which the inarticulate and
conflicting aspirations of a people become clarified and from which
they derive directing force. Since, however, philosophers are likely to
clothe their thoughts in highly technical language, there is need of a
class of middle-men-interpreters through whom philosophy
penetrates the masses. By American tradition, the philosophers have
been professors; the interpreters, clergymen. Professors are likely to
be deflected by the ideas embodied in the institutions with which
they associate themselves. The American college, in its foundations,
was designated a protector of orthodoxy and still echoes what
Santayana has so aptly called the “genteel tradition,” the tradition
that the teacher must defend the faith. Some of the most liberal New
England colleges even now demand attendance at daily chapel and
Sunday church. Less than a quarter of a century ago, one could still
find, among major non-sectarian institutions, the clergyman-
president, himself a teacher, crowning the curriculum with a senior
requirement, Christian Evidences, in support of the Faith.
The nineteenth century organized a vigorous war against this
genteel tradition. Not only were the attacks of rationalism on dogma
reinforced by the ever-mounting tide of scientific discovery within our
institutions of learning, but also the news of these scientific
discoveries began to stir the imagination of the public, and to carry
the conflict of science and theology beyond the control of the church-
college. The greatest leaven was Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” of
which two American editions were announced as early as 1860, one
year after its publication in England. The dogma of science came
publicly to confront the dogma of theology. Howsoever conservative
the college, it had to yield to the new intellectual temper and the
capitulation was facilitated by the army of young professors whom
cheapened transportation and the rumour of great achievements led
to the universities of Germany.
From the point of view of popular interest, the immediate effects
of these pilgrimages were not wholly advantageous to philosophy. In
losing something of their American provincialism, these pilgrims also
lost their hold on American interests. The problems that they brought
back were rooted in a foreign soil and tradition. To students they
appeared artificial and barren displays of technical skill. Thus an
academic philosophy of professordom arose, the more lonely
through the loss of the ecclesiastical mediators of the earlier
tradition. But here and there American vitality showed through its
foreign clothes and gradually an assimilation took place, the more
easily, perhaps, since German idealism naturally sustains the
genteel tradition and thrives amid the modes of thought that
Emerson had developed independently and for which his literary gifts
had obtained a following.
Wherever New England has constituted the skeletal muscles of
philosophic culture, its temper has remained unchanged. Calvinism
was brought to America because it suited this temper, and the
history of idealism in America is the history of its preservation by
adaptation to a changing environment of ideas. Its marks are a
sense of the presence of the Divine in experience and a no less
strong sense of inevitable evil. Jonathan Edwards writes, “When we
behold the light and brightness of the sun, the golden edges of an
evening cloud, or the beauteous bow, we behold the adumbrations of
His glory and goodness; and in the blue sky, of his mildness and
gentleness. There are also many things wherein we may behold His
awful majesty: in the sun in his strength, in comets, in thunder, with
the lowering thunder-clouds, in ragged rocks and the brows of
mountains.” Emerson’s version is: “Nature is always consistent,
though she feigns to contravene her own laws.... She arms and
equips an animal to find it place and living in the earth, and at the
same time she arms and equips another animal to destroy it. Space
exists to divide creatures; but by clothing the sides of a bird with a
few feathers she gives him a petty omnipresence.... Nature is the
incarnation of a thought, and turns to a thought again, as ice
becomes water and gas. Every moment instructs and every object;
for wisdom is infused into every form.” And Royce’s: “When they told
us in childhood that we could not see God just because he was
everywhere, just because his omnipresence gave us no chance to
discern him and to fix our eyes upon him, they told us a deep truth in
allegorical fashion.... The Self is so little a thing merely guessed at
as the unknown source of experience, that already, in the very least
of daily experiences, you unconsciously know him as something
present.”
In its darker aspect this temper gives us Edwards’s “Sinners in
the Hands of an Angry God,” whose choices we may not fathom. But
Emerson is not far behind: “Great men, great nations, have not been
boasters and buffoons, but perceivers of the terror of life, and have
manned themselves to face it.... At Lisbon, an earthquake killed men
like flies. At Naples, three years ago, ten thousand persons were
crushed in a few minutes. Etc.... Providence has a wild, rough,
incalculable road to its end, and it is of no use to try to whitewash its
huge, mixed instrumentalities, or to dress up that terrific benefactor
in the clean shirt and white neckcloth of a student of divinity.” For
Royce, “the worst tragedy of the world is the tragedy of the brute
chance to which everything spiritual seems to be subject amongst us
—the tragedy of the diabolical irrationality of so many among the
foes of whatever is significant.”
Emersonian philosophy fails in two respects to satisfy the
demands of the puritanical temperament upon contemporary
thought. In building altars to the “Beautiful Necessity,” it neglects to
assimilate the discoveries of science, and it detaches itself from the
Christian tradition within which alone this spirit feels at home. Both of
these defects are met by the greatest of American idealists,
Professor Royce.
In character and thought Royce is the great reconciler of
contradictions. Irrational in his affections, and at his best in the
society of children, he stands for the absolute authority of reason;
filled with indignation at wrong and injustice, he explains the
presence of evil as an essential condition for the good; keenly critical
and not optimistic as to the concrete characters of men, he presents
man as the image of God, a part of the self-representative system
through which the Divine nature unfolds itself. Never was there a
better illustration of Pascal’s dictum that we use our reasons to
support what we already believe, not to attain conclusions. And
never was there greater self-deception as to the presence of this
process.
What man not already convinced of an Absolute could find in
error the proof of a deeper self that knows in unity all truth? Who
else could accept the dilemma “either ... your real world yonder is
through and through a world of ideas, an outer mind that you are
more or less comprehending through your experience, or else, in so
far as it is real and outer, it is unknowable, an inscrutable X, an
absolute mystery”? Without the congeniality of belief, where is the
thrill in assimilating self-consciousness as infinite to a greater Infinite,
as the infinite systems of even numbers, or of odd numbers, or an
infinity of other infinite series can be assimilated to the greater infinity
of the whole number series as proper parts? Yet Royce has been
able to clothe these doctrines with vast erudition and flashes of
quaint humour, helped out by a prolix and somewhat desultory
memory, and give them life.
By virtue of the obscurantist logic inherent in this as in other
transcendental idealisms, there is a genuine attachment to a certain
aspect of Christianity. The identification of the Absolute with the
Logos of John in his “Spirit of Modern Philosophy” and the frequent
lapses into Scriptural language are not mere tricks to inspire
abstractions with the breath of life. By such logic “selves” are never
wholly distinct. If we make classifications, they are all secundum
quid. Absolute ontological sundering is as mythical as the Snark. The
individual is essentially a member of a community of selves that
establishes duties for him under the demands of Loyalty. This is the
basis of Royce’s ethics. But the fellowship in this community is also a
participation in the “beloved community” within which sin, atonement,
and the dogma of Pauline Christianity unfold themselves naturally in
the guise of social psychology. In such treatment of the “Problem of
Christianity” there is at most only a slight shifting of emphasis from
the somewhat too self-conscious individualism of his earliest
philosophy.
Royce used to tell a story on himself that illustrates a reaction of
a part of the public to idealistic philosophy. At the close of a lecture
before a certain woman’s organization, one of his auditors
approached him with the words: “Oh, my dear Professor Royce, I did
enjoy your lectures so much! Of course, I didn’t understand one word
of it, but it was so evident you understood it all, that it made it very
enjoyable!” The lady, though more frank in her confession, was
probably not intellectually inferior to a considerable portion of the
idealist’s public. James notes the fascination of hearing high things
talked about, even if one cannot understand. But time is, alas,
productive of comparative understanding, and it may be with Royce,
as with Emerson before him, that growth of understanding
contributes to narrowing the circle of his readers. The imported
mysteries of Eucken and Bergson offer newer thrills, and a fuller
sense of keeping up to date.
If Royce’s philosophy of religion has not the success that might
have been anticipated among those seeking a freer religion, it is
probably, as Professor Hocking suggests, because “idealism does
not do the work of religious truth.” Royce has no interest in churches
or sects. Christ is for him little more than a shadow. Prayer and
worship find no place in his discussion. The mantle of the genteel
tradition must then fall on other shoulders, probably those of Hocking
himself. His “Meaning of God in Human Experience” is an effort to
unite realism, mysticism, and idealism to establish Christianity as
“organically rooted in passion, fact, and institutional life.” Where
idealism has destroyed the fear of Hell, this new interpretation
“restores the sense of infinite hazard, a wrath to come, a heavenly
city to be gained or lost in the process of time and by the use of our
freedom”!
In this philosophy, we ask, what has religion done for humanity
and how has it operated? Its effects appear in “the basis of such
certainties as we have, our self-respect, our belief in human worth,
our faith in the soul’s stability through all catastrophes of physical
nature, and in the integrity of history.” But if we accept this “mass of
actual deed, once and for all accomplished under the assurance of
historic religion” and through the medium of religious dogma and
practice, does this guarantee the future importance of religion? Much
has been accomplished under the conception that the earth was flat,
but the conception is nevertheless not valid.
It is too soon to estimate the depth of impression that this
philosophy will make on American culture. Professor Hocking warns
us against hastening to judge that the world is becoming irreligious.
He believes that the current distaste for the language of orthodoxy
may spring from the opposite reason, that man is becoming
potentially more religious. If so, this fact may conspire with the
American tradition of the church-college to verify Professor Cohen’s
assertion that “the idealistic tradition still is and perhaps will long
continue to be the prevailing basis of philosophic instruction in
America.” But there are signs that point to an opposite conclusion
and the means of emancipation are at hand both in a change of
popular spirit and within philosophy itself.
The economic and social conditions that scattered the more
adventurous of the New Englanders through the developing West,
and the tides of immigration of the 19th century, have weakened the
hold of the Calvinistic spirit. These events, and scientific education,
are producing a generation that can look upon the beauties of
nature, be moved to enjoyment, admiration, and wonder by them
without, on that account, feeling themselves in the presence of a
supernatural Divine principle. Success in mastering nature has
overcome the feeling of helplessness in the presence of misfortune.
It breeds optimists of intelligence. To a cataclysm such as the San
Francisco earthquake, it replies with organized relief and
reconstruction in reinforced concrete. If pestilence appears, it seeks
the germ, an antitoxin, and sanitary measures. There are no longer
altars built to the Beautiful Necessity.
Within philosophy, the most radical expression of this attitude
appears in the New Realism, and in the instrumentalism of Dewey. In
1910, six of the younger American philosophers issued in the
Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Method “The
Programme and First Platform of Six Realists,” followed shortly by a
co-operative volume of studies to elaborate the doctrine. Their
deepest bond of union is a distaste for the romantic spirit and
obscurantist logic of Absolute Idealism. Hence their dominant idea is
to cut at the very foundations of this system, the theory of relations in
general, and the relation of idea and object in particular. Young
America is not fond of the subtleties of history, hence these realists
take their stand upon the “unimpeachable truth of the accredited
results of science” at a time when, by the irony of history, science
herself has begun to doubt.
To thwart idealism, psychology must be rewritten. While
consciousness exists there is always the chance that our world of
facts may fade into subjective presentations. Seizing a fruitful
suggestion of James’, they introduce us to a world of objects that
exists quite independently of being known. The relations of these
objects are external to them and independent of their character.
Sometimes, however, there arise relations between our organisms
and other objects that can best be described by asserting that these
objects have entered into our consciousness. How then can we fall
into error? Only as nature makes mistakes, by reacting in a way that
brings conflict with unnoted conditions. Perhaps the greatest
contribution of Realism as yet to American thought is the contribution
of some of its apostles to its implicit psychology, already
independently established as behaviourism, the most vital movement
in contemporary psychology.
The highly technical form of the Six Realists’ co-operative
volume has kept their doctrine from any great reading public. But in
its critical echoes, the busy American finds a sympathetic note in the
assertion of the independent reality of the objects with which he
works and the world in which he has to make his way. His also is
practical faith in science, and he is glad to escape an inevitable type
of religion and moral theory to be swallowed along with philosophy.
Until the New Realists, however, develop further implications of their
theory, or at least present congenial religious, moral, and social
attitudes, their philosophy has only the negative significance of
release. If it is going to take a deep hold on life, it must also be
creative, not replacing dogma by dogma, but elaborating some new
world vision. As yet it has told us little more than that truth,
goodness, and beauty are independent realities, eternal
subsistencies that await our discovery.
Professor Perry has outlined a realistic morality. For him a right
action is any that conduces to goodness and whatever fulfils an
interest is good. But a good action is not necessarily moral. Morality
requires the fulfilment of the greatest possible number of interests,
under the given circumstances; the highest good, if attainable, would
be an action fulfilling all possible interests. This doctrine, though
intelligible, is hard to apply in specific instances. In it realism
dissolves into pragmatism, and its significance can best be seen in
connection with that philosophy, where it has received fuller
development and concrete applications.
Pragmatism obtained its initial impulse through a mind in temper
between the sturdy common sense of the New Realists and the
emotionalistic romanticism of the Idealists, or rather comprehending
both within itself. This mind is that of William James, the last heir of
the line of pure New England culture, made cosmopolitan by travel
and intellectual contacts. Of Swedenborgian family, skilled alike in
science and art, James lived the mystical thrills of the unknown but
could handle them with the shrewdness of a Yankee trader. With
young America, his gaze is directed toward the future, and with it, he
is impatient of dogma and restraint. He is free from conventions of
thought and action with the freedom of those who have lived them all
in their ancestry and dare to face realities without fear of social or
intellectual faux pas. With such new-found freedom goes a vast
craving for experience. For him, the deepest realities are the
personal experiences of individual men.
James’ greatest contribution is his “Psychology.” In it he places
himself in the stream of human experience, ruthlessly cutting the
gordian knots of psychological dogma and conventions. The mind
that he reports is the mind each of us sees in himself. It is not so
much a science of psychology as the materials for such a science, a
science in its descriptive stage, constantly interrupted by shrewd
homilies wherein habit appears as the fly-wheel of society, or our
many selves enlarge the scope of sympathetic living. Nor is it
congenial to this adventurer in experience that his explorations
should constrain human nature within a scientist’s map. Not only
must the stream of consciousness flow between the boundaries of
our concepts, but also in the human will there is a point, be it ever so
small, where a “we,” too real ever to be comprehended by science or
philosophy, can dip down into the stream of consciousness and
delay some fleeting idea, be it only for the twinkling of an eye, and
thereby change the whole course and significance of our overt
action. Freedom must not unequivocally surrender to scientific
determinism, or chance to necessity.
James is a Parsifal to whom the Grail is never quite revealed.
His pragmatism and radical empiricism are but methods of
exploration and no adventure is too puny or mean for the quest. We
must make our ideas clear and test them by the revelation they
produce. Thoughts that make no difference to us in living are not real
thoughts, but imaginings. The way is always open and perhaps there
is a guiding truth, a working value, in the operations of even the
deranged mind. We must entertain the ecstatic visions of saints, the
alleged communications of spiritualists, mystical contacts with
sources of some higher power, and even the thought-systems of
cranks, that nothing be lost or untried. Not that we need share such
beliefs, but they are genuine experiences and who can foretell where
in experiences some fruitful vision may arise!
As a psychologist, James knew that the significance of a belief
lies not so much in its content as in its power to direct the energies it
releases. His catholic interests are not equivalent to uncritical
credulity. Santayana, the wisest of his critics, is right in his assertion
that James never lost his agnosticism: “He did not really believe; he
merely believed in the right of believing that you might be right if you
believed.” As for Pascal, the wager on immortality might be worth the
making for if one won there was the blessedness of Heaven, and if
one lost—at least there should have been a sustaining optimism
through the trials of this life. Communion with the infinite might open
new sources of power. If so, the power was there. If not, no harm
had been done by the trial. Yet there is no evidence in James’

Full download Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski Solutions Manual all chapter 2024 pdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full download Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski Solutions Manual all chapter 2024 pdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski Solutions Manual all chapter 2024 pdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski

Trigonometry 4th Edition Dugopolski Test Bank

Precalculus Functions and Graphs 4th Edition Dugopolski

Algebra and Trigonometry 4th Edition Stewart Solutions

College Algebra 6th Edition Dugopolski Solutions Manual

Trigonometry 10th Edition Lial Solutions Manual

Trigonometry 10th Edition Larson Solutions Manual

Trigonometry 11th Edition Lial Solutions Manual

Trigonometry 8th Edition McKeague Solutions Manual

For Thought 6. Note α = 180◦ − (16◦ + 121◦ ) = 43◦ .

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

we have 12. Note β = 180◦ − (39.7◦ + 91.6◦ ) = 48.7◦ .

Since 14. Draw angle β = 28.6◦ and let h be the height.

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

40.7 sin 28.6◦ C

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

18. Draw angle γ = 128.6◦ . So γ2 = 180◦ − (45.1◦ + 32.7◦ ) = 102.2◦ .

20. Draw angle α = 30◦ and let h be the height.

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

C `` d2s + 39502 = 39602

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Then The remaining angles are β = 153.435◦

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

37. Let t be the number of seconds it takes the fox

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Apply the sine law as follows: 45. a) Odd b) Even

3.5(t + 1) 6.5t c) Even d) Even

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

h 6. By the cosine law, we get

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

8. By the cosine law, we obtain 12. By the cosine law,

So γ = 180◦ − (30.2◦ + 130.3◦ ) = 19.5◦ So α = 180◦ − (60.6◦ + 65.5◦ ) = 53.9◦ .

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

29. Recall, a central angle α in a circle

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

α = cos−1 (0.2) 41. The pentagon consists of 5 chords each of

AB 2 + 5.32 − 7.62 ...........

1.0172 = .1332 + .8942 − 2(.133)(.894) cos α

So θ2 = 180◦ − 89.4◦ = 90.6◦ .

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

By the sine law, we find c) Yes, even in perfect alignment a total

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

1. Using the cosine law, we find or equivalently

3. The triangle inequality fails since a = 6 plus 60

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

19.7 sin 74.2◦

By the sine law, we obtain Note γ = 180◦ − (42.3◦ + 62.1◦ ) = 75.6◦ .

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

1 11. Note, the area of the triangle below is

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

15. Note, 23. Since two sides and an included angle

Copyright 2015 Pearson Education, Inc.

You might also like