I can't help but notice pige3 is shown in a very convoluted way, when it (in fact a slightly stronger statement) can be seen to follow quickly from sincos6thpi (which is indirectly used in the proof), sinltx, and a bit of arithmetic. It seems like this is meant to preserve the geometric character of the approach, using Lipschitz continuity as a sort of analytic version of Euclid's first postulate, but I'm not sure that actually accomplishes that any better; after all, if you were to ask the layperson what a sine was, they'd give you a geometric answer, and there are a lot of situations in geometry (starting with corners) where this approach wouldn't work.