[Term Entry] C# Math-functions: SinCos()

[ylevental]

Added documentation for the Math.SinCos() method which returns both the sine and cosine of a given angle as a tuple. This method is more efficient than calling Math.Sin() and Math.Cos() separately.

Resolves #7953

Description

Added documentation for the Math.SinCos() method in C# math-functions. This method returns both the sine and cosine of a given angle as a tuple, which is more efficient than calling Math.Sin() and Math.Cos() separately when both values are needed.

The documentation includes:

• Complete YAML metadata following the term entry template
• Method description and syntax
• Static example with expected output
• Runnable codebyte example

Issue Solved

Closes #7953

Type of Change

• Adding a new entry

Checklist

• All writings are my own.
• My entry follows the Codecademy Docs style guide.
• My changes generate no new warnings.
• I have performed a self-review of my own writing and code.
• I have checked my entry and corrected any misspellings.
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation if needed.
• I have confirmed my changes are not being pushed from my forked main branch.
• I have confirmed that I'm pushing from a new branch named after the changes I'm making.
• I have linked any issues that are relevant to this PR in the Issues Solved section.

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[ylevental]

@mamtawardhani Obligatory confession: I did this in three minutes with https://claude.ai/code

The fastest ever. All I had to do was type in "Work on Issue #7953". I am in shock, now we can do dozens of issues in a single day.

Would that be okay, for this issue and future ones?

[mamtawardhani]

Looks good for a second review! 🚀

[dakshdeepHERE]

LGTM with minor changes 🚀

[github-actions]

👋 @ylevental
You have contributed to Codecademy Docs, and we would like to know more about you and your experience.
Please take a minute to fill out this four question survey to help us better understand Docs contributions and how we can improve the experience for you and our learners.
Thank you for your help!

🎉 Your contribution(s) can be seen here:

https://www.codecademy.com/resources/docs/c-sharp/math-functions/sincos

Please note it may take a little while for changes to become visible.
If you're appearing as anonymous and want to be credited, visit the linked accounts page and ensure that your GitHub account is linked.

[cryptiklemur]

This article and all articles by this author were written by AI: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1ozytsi/thanks_to_claude_code_i_was_able_to_write_ten/

[ylevental]

This article and all articles by this author were written by AI: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1ozytsi/thanks_to_claude_code_i_was_able_to_write_ten/

You are clearly not the wise guy you think you are. I have reported you for disruptive behavior and harassment -- to the Codecademy GitHub repo and to GitHub administration.

[cryptiklemur]

Not trying to be a wise guy. I don't think Code Academy should give a platform to AI written articles. Ethical reasons aside, this does violate their contribution docs

All writings are my own.

[cryptiklemur]

Also: https://github.com/Codecademy/docs/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#what-is-the-policy-for-using-generative-ai

[ylevental]

Also: https://github.com/Codecademy/docs/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#what-is-the-policy-for-using-generative-ai

1. This doesn't excuse your repeated spamming
2. You actually do make a good point. That being said, I did successfully get ten peer-reviewed articles through with little effort.

This rule was written during the early stages of AI, when most output was patent nonsense. I believe it should be amended given recent dramatic improvements, where a person would have to simply disclose they used AI.

I will put in a formal request later for this.

[cryptiklemur]

1. Its not repeated spamming. I posted it in every pull request where there was generative AI usage.
2. You misled the reviewers. You did not tell them it was done with generative AI in the main post, and specifically said that you wrote it.

Regardless of when the rule is written, its still the rules, and its still valid.

[ylevental]

1. Its not repeated spamming. I posted it in every pull request where there was generative AI usage.

2. You misled the reviewers. You did not tell them it was done with generative AI in the main post

Regardless of when the rule is written, its still the rules, and its still valid.

You could just have made a single master post, which would have been far more efficient.

I will apologize in my formal request, just in case. These articles are very basic in nature. The main issue would have been inaccuracy, which didn't even happen.

[cryptiklemur]

I would definitely argue that is not the main issue. Accuracy is one issue, but there are many issues with using AI to write articles like this

[ylevental]

I would definitely argue that is not the main issue. Accuracy is one issue, but there are many issues with using AI to write articles like this

Please direct all critiques to #8014 to keep everything more organized. I just created this issue.

Remember to be civil and follow GitHub rules.