![]() | Versine was nominated as a Mathematics good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 24, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think that https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinus_versus_und_Kosinus_versus should be marked as the German version of this article, but I have no idea how to do that myself. Maybe someone more experienced than me could do that. Kriegaex ( talk) 08:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think Haversine should redirect to Haversine_formula rather than here.
It is really always non-negative, as stated in the "History and applications" section, if it is defined as 2sin²(θ/2), but not, if it is defined as 1-cosθ. Are the definitions missing a pair of || somewhere? --
Pt 23:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Math notation, of course, is naturally ambiguous, like all natural languages. This case of ambiguity has to do with the use of exponents in math. Consider this from the article:
is a function, and some mathematicians write, when they mean to say . Therefore, it is not immediately apparent that the author of this article really meant to say when s/he wrote . It was necessary for me to verify the identity with a calculator before I could be sure. A more complex equation can be rendered totally unreadable by the proliferation of such ambiguity.
98.31.14.215 ( talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This article should have a diagram showing the versine function plotted vs. angle.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Refering to wikipedia's diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circle-trig6.svg which is used on the Trigonometric functions page, the Versed Sine and Coversed Sine are both shown, however the corresponding COsine functions (versed cosine and coversed cosine) are not. Since the diagram is (there) claimed to show "all of the trigonometric functions" that this is an omission.
I was trying to clarify in my mind the distinction between coversed cosine and versed sine (and failed!), but as a "visual learner" inclusion of a completed diagram would be rather helpful!
188.221.150.127 ( talk) 18:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Article says:
Checking Indian astronomy, it appears that this is indeed fourth–fifth century A.D.. In which case, Ptolemy's table of chords is a trig table, found in the Almagest, still extant, and at least 150 years older. (The oldest known trig table is by Hipparchus, 3 centuries older still, but no known copies survive.) -- 203.20.101.203 ( talk) 08:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that between 0 and PI(180 degrees), does the result of sin(angle) - versine (angle) always equals zero (?) But what about angles between PI rad or 180 degrees - and 2 PI rad or 360 degrees ? I would like the article to show sine, versine and haversine curves for one entire lap, if possible. I think that would be helpfull for readers as well. Boeing720 ( talk) 02:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The nominator has neither edited the article nor discussed the nomination on the talk page. In fact, the nominator appears to have made only one edit to a computer science article, no edits to any mathematics article, and no other edits to articles of a technical nature before this nomination. The lead does not adequately summarize the article. The first section, "Overview", is an unreadable mass of boldfaced synonyms and citation overkill. The next section, "History and applications", has multiple unsourced paragraphs, and appears to be a collection of random facts thrown together in a random order rather than having any logical structure. The "Definitions" section has no text at all, as do several subsequent sections. The "Circular rotations" section has no references at all. The references section includes an excessively long quotation (although not a copyvio as the source is public domain by now). Many of the references are to the dubiously-reliable MathWorld. Several references are to publications with unknown titles that the person using the reference obviously has not read, because they go on to say "according to [someone else], this reference says [something vague about the subject]". The Stávek reference is to an unreliable predatory journal, as is the Stávek entry in "further reading". There is a year-old and still-valid "citation needed" tag on the supposed and unlikely Indian etymology of the Latin word for an arrow. If one wishes to find applications of this function, they are scattered in multiple sections, none of them with section headings identifying them as applications. Given that the versin is such a trivial variation of the cos, there is no indication why the article on it needs to go into such intricate detail about many many other trigonometric functions that are also trivial variations on cos; this is supposed to be an article on versin, not a catalog of all other trigonometric functions. This is very far in many ways from being a Good Article; I think it should be an immediate fail, per WP:GAFAIL. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that the overview has a ridiculous amount of citations. Some have up to 10 citations, just to show that something is a synonym! This seems a little unnecessary. Eridian314 ( talk) 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You can see how to convert a function into up there but what about ? I think it should be included along with how to convert a function into . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.195.196 ( talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Versine was nominated as a Mathematics good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 24, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I think that https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinus_versus_und_Kosinus_versus should be marked as the German version of this article, but I have no idea how to do that myself. Maybe someone more experienced than me could do that. Kriegaex ( talk) 08:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I think Haversine should redirect to Haversine_formula rather than here.
It is really always non-negative, as stated in the "History and applications" section, if it is defined as 2sin²(θ/2), but not, if it is defined as 1-cosθ. Are the definitions missing a pair of || somewhere? --
Pt 23:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Math notation, of course, is naturally ambiguous, like all natural languages. This case of ambiguity has to do with the use of exponents in math. Consider this from the article:
is a function, and some mathematicians write, when they mean to say . Therefore, it is not immediately apparent that the author of this article really meant to say when s/he wrote . It was necessary for me to verify the identity with a calculator before I could be sure. A more complex equation can be rendered totally unreadable by the proliferation of such ambiguity.
98.31.14.215 ( talk) 13:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
This article should have a diagram showing the versine function plotted vs. angle.-- Srleffler ( talk) 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Refering to wikipedia's diagram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circle-trig6.svg which is used on the Trigonometric functions page, the Versed Sine and Coversed Sine are both shown, however the corresponding COsine functions (versed cosine and coversed cosine) are not. Since the diagram is (there) claimed to show "all of the trigonometric functions" that this is an omission.
I was trying to clarify in my mind the distinction between coversed cosine and versed sine (and failed!), but as a "visual learner" inclusion of a completed diagram would be rather helpful!
188.221.150.127 ( talk) 18:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Article says:
Checking Indian astronomy, it appears that this is indeed fourth–fifth century A.D.. In which case, Ptolemy's table of chords is a trig table, found in the Almagest, still extant, and at least 150 years older. (The oldest known trig table is by Hipparchus, 3 centuries older still, but no known copies survive.) -- 203.20.101.203 ( talk) 08:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that between 0 and PI(180 degrees), does the result of sin(angle) - versine (angle) always equals zero (?) But what about angles between PI rad or 180 degrees - and 2 PI rad or 360 degrees ? I would like the article to show sine, versine and haversine curves for one entire lap, if possible. I think that would be helpfull for readers as well. Boeing720 ( talk) 02:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The nominator has neither edited the article nor discussed the nomination on the talk page. In fact, the nominator appears to have made only one edit to a computer science article, no edits to any mathematics article, and no other edits to articles of a technical nature before this nomination. The lead does not adequately summarize the article. The first section, "Overview", is an unreadable mass of boldfaced synonyms and citation overkill. The next section, "History and applications", has multiple unsourced paragraphs, and appears to be a collection of random facts thrown together in a random order rather than having any logical structure. The "Definitions" section has no text at all, as do several subsequent sections. The "Circular rotations" section has no references at all. The references section includes an excessively long quotation (although not a copyvio as the source is public domain by now). Many of the references are to the dubiously-reliable MathWorld. Several references are to publications with unknown titles that the person using the reference obviously has not read, because they go on to say "according to [someone else], this reference says [something vague about the subject]". The Stávek reference is to an unreliable predatory journal, as is the Stávek entry in "further reading". There is a year-old and still-valid "citation needed" tag on the supposed and unlikely Indian etymology of the Latin word for an arrow. If one wishes to find applications of this function, they are scattered in multiple sections, none of them with section headings identifying them as applications. Given that the versin is such a trivial variation of the cos, there is no indication why the article on it needs to go into such intricate detail about many many other trigonometric functions that are also trivial variations on cos; this is supposed to be an article on versin, not a catalog of all other trigonometric functions. This is very far in many ways from being a Good Article; I think it should be an immediate fail, per WP:GAFAIL. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that the overview has a ridiculous amount of citations. Some have up to 10 citations, just to show that something is a synonym! This seems a little unnecessary. Eridian314 ( talk) 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You can see how to convert a function into up there but what about ? I think it should be included along with how to convert a function into . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.195.196 ( talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)