Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In trigonometry, the law of sines, sine law, sine formula, or sine rule is an equation relating the lengths of the sides of any triangle to the sines of its angles. According to the law, = = =, where a, b, and c are the lengths of the sides of a triangle, and α, β, and γ are the opposite angles (see figure 2), while R is the radius of the triangle's circumcircle.
In the case of a patent ambiguity, parol evidence is admissible to explain only what has been written, not what the writer intended to write. For example, in Saunderson v Piper (1839), [ 7 ] where a bill of exchange was drawn in figures for £245 and in words for two hundred pounds, evidence that "and forty-five" had been omitted by mistake was ...
Some physical quantities do not yet have established notations; their value (and sometimes even dimension, as in the case of the Einstein coefficients), depends on the system of notations. Many terms are ambiguous. Each use of an ambiguous term should be preceded by the definition, suitable for a specific case.
[6] [7] [a] The parentheses can be omitted if the input is a single numerical variable or constant, [2] as in the case of sin x = sin(x) and sin π = sin(π). [ a ] Traditionally this convention extends to monomials ; thus, sin 3 x = sin(3 x ) and even sin 1 / 2 xy = sin( xy /2) , but sin x + y = sin( x ) + y , because x + y is not a ...
New York State Police are reaching out to the public for assistance in solving a cold case that has remained unsolved for nearly four decades. On the morning of Feb. 27, 1987, a Palmyra man ...
This is the ambiguous case and two different triangles can be formed from the given information, but further information distinguishing them can lead to a proof of congruence. Angle-angle-angle
Members of the Morris County Prosecutor's Office were recognized for solving the 40-year-old Baby Mary case by the New Jersey Homicide Investigators Association at the annual Advanced Homicide ...
Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations.