对于罪恶，用泰勒展开可以得到

Sin (x) = x - x^3/3!+ x ^ 5/5 !- x ^ 7/7 !+……(1）

您将继续添加项，直到它们之间的差异低于可接受的容忍水平，或者只是有限的步数(更快，但不太精确)。举个例子:

float sin(float x)
{
  float res=0, pow=x, fact=1;
  for(int i=0; i<5; ++i)
  {
    res+=pow/fact;
    pow*=-1*x*x;
    fact*=(2*(i+1))*(2*(i+1)+1);
  }

  return res;
}

注:(1)适用于小角度的近似值sin(x)=x。对于更大的角度，你需要计算越来越多的项才能得到可接受的结果。 你可以使用while参数并继续，以达到一定的准确性:

double sin (double x){
    int i = 1;
    double cur = x;
    double acc = 1;
    double fact= 1;
    double pow = x;
    while (fabs(acc) > .00000001 &&   i < 100){
        fact *= ((2*i)*(2*i+1));
        pow *= -1 * x*x; 
        acc =  pow / fact;
        cur += acc;
        i++;
    }
    return cur;

}

像正弦和余弦这样的函数是在微处理器内部的微码中实现的。例如，英特尔芯片就有相应的组装指令。C编译器将生成调用这些汇编指令的代码。(相反，Java编译器不会。Java在软件而不是硬件中计算三角函数，因此运行速度要慢得多。)

芯片不使用泰勒级数来计算三角函数，至少不完全是这样。首先，他们使用CORDIC，但他们也可能使用一个短的泰勒级数来优化CORDIC的结果，或者用于特殊情况，例如在非常小的角度下以相对较高的精度计算正弦。有关更多解释，请参阅StackOverflow的回答。

OK kiddies, time for the pros.... This is one of my biggest complaints with inexperienced software engineers. They come in calculating transcendental functions from scratch (using Taylor's series) as if nobody had ever done these calculations before in their lives. Not true. This is a well defined problem and has been approached thousands of times by very clever software and hardware engineers and has a well defined solution. Basically, most of the transcendental functions use Chebyshev Polynomials to calculate them. As to which polynomials are used depends on the circumstances. First, the bible on this matter is a book called "Computer Approximations" by Hart and Cheney. In that book, you can decide if you have a hardware adder, multiplier, divider, etc, and decide which operations are fastest. e.g. If you had a really fast divider, the fastest way to calculate sine might be P1(x)/P2(x) where P1, P2 are Chebyshev polynomials. Without the fast divider, it might be just P(x), where P has much more terms than P1 or P2....so it'd be slower. So, first step is to determine your hardware and what it can do. Then you choose the appropriate combination of Chebyshev polynomials (is usually of the form cos(ax) = aP(x) for cosine for example, again where P is a Chebyshev polynomial). Then you decide what decimal precision you want. e.g. if you want 7 digits precision, you look that up in the appropriate table in the book I mentioned, and it will give you (for precision = 7.33) a number N = 4 and a polynomial number 3502. N is the order of the polynomial (so it's p4.x^4 + p3.x^3 + p2.x^2 + p1.x + p0), because N=4. Then you look up the actual value of the p4,p3,p2,p1,p0 values in the back of the book under 3502 (they'll be in floating point). Then you implement your algorithm in software in the form: (((p4.x + p3).x + p2).x + p1).x + p0 ....and this is how you'd calculate cosine to 7 decimal places on that hardware.

请注意，在FPU中大多数硬件实现的超越操作通常涉及一些微码和类似的操作(取决于硬件)。 切比雪夫多项式用于大多数先验多项式，但不是全部。例:使用Newton raphson方法的两次迭代，首先使用查询表，使用平方根更快。 同样，《计算机逼近》这本书会告诉你。

If you plan on implmementing these functions, I'd recommend to anyone that they get a copy of that book. It really is the bible for these kinds of algorithms. Note that there are bunches of alternative means for calculating these values like cordics, etc, but these tend to be best for specific algorithms where you only need low precision. To guarantee the precision every time, the chebyshev polynomials are the way to go. Like I said, well defined problem. Has been solved for 50 years now.....and thats how it's done.

Now, that being said, there are techniques whereby the Chebyshev polynomials can be used to get a single precision result with a low degree polynomial (like the example for cosine above). Then, there are other techniques to interpolate between values to increase the accuracy without having to go to a much larger polynomial, such as "Gal's Accurate Tables Method". This latter technique is what the post referring to the ACM literature is referring to. But ultimately, the Chebyshev Polynomials are what are used to get 90% of the way there.

享受。

如果您想查看这些函数在C语言中的实际GNU实现，请查看glibc的最新主干。参见GNU C库。

库函数的实际实现取决于特定的编译器和/或库提供程序。不管它是用硬件还是软件，不管它是不是泰勒展开，等等，都会有所不同。

我意识到这完全没有帮助。

无论何时这样一个函数被求值，那么在某种程度上很可能有:

内插的值表(用于快速，不准确的应用程序-例如计算机图形) 收敛于期望值的级数的计算——可能不是泰勒级数，更可能是基于像克伦肖-柯蒂斯这样的奇异正交。

如果没有硬件支持，那么编译器可能会使用后一种方法，只发出汇编代码(没有调试符号)，而不是使用c库——这让您在调试器中跟踪实际代码变得很棘手。