I know that proving the $\lim\limits_{x\to0} \frac{\sin(x)}{x}$ another way is true but my question is from this proof (1) on proofwiki.
Is the method they use to proof the equation invalid? It seems to create circular logic as you can see in at the beginning of this video on youtube.
Also from the following:
Statement A: $\,\frac{d}{dx} \sin(x)\big|_{x=0} = 1$
Statement B: $\,\sin(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \tfrac{(-1)^k x^{2k+1}}{(2k+1)!}$
Statement C: $\,\lim\limits_{x \to 0} \tfrac{\sin(x)}{x} = 1$
Here is the problem:
$$A\implies B\implies C\implies A$$ This is a circular.
So the method of proof (1) on the proofwiki site is a false method?
They use infinite sum which is taylor series of $\sin(x)$ which requires the derivative of $\sin(x)$ which creates circular logic?
Or it is still true provided the infinite sum of $\sin(x)$ derives from a taylor series centred at another point not $0$.
In this case can we avoid taking derivative of $\sin(x)$ at $0$ ?
So on the proof (1) they should add condition that sin(x) derive from taylor series centred not at $0$? Am I understanding this correctly?
When you take the series as a definition of $\sin$, that's taylor's theorem
"In mathematics, a Taylor series is a representation of a function as an infinite sum of terms that are calculated from the values of the function's derivatives at a single point."
So to avoid that should we think that statement $B$ is derived from taylor series centred not at $0$?
Please also watch the video provided in the question. It also has circular logic problem.
Please provide an easy understanding and step by step answer. I'm a newbie in calculus $2$ and have no more knowledge than calculus $2$.

The proof cannot be circular. One way to do all of this consistently is to define $\sin$, $\cos$ and $e^z$ by power series and then the limits, derivatives and further analytical properties follow from this definition.
However, you may ask then
I have been wondering about this as a student and it's a pity that most books avoid this. One way to connect the geometric and algebraic definitions goes as follows:
There is also a "reversed" way: $\sin$ and $\cos$ and $\pi$ can be defined so that they satisfy a simple set of axioms (all of those reflecting the geometrical intuition) and then one proves that such functions exist, are unique, have the derivatives as required, and then the power series as a result.