What is the formula for pi used in the Python decimal library?
(Don't be alarmed by the title; this is a question about mathematics, not programming.)
In the documentation for the decimal
module in the Python Standard Library, an example is given for computing the digits of $pi$ to a given precision:
def pi():
"""Compute Pi to the current precision.
>>> print(pi())
3.141592653589793238462643383
"""
getcontext().prec += 2 # extra digits for intermediate steps
three = Decimal(3) # substitute "three=3.0" for regular floats
lasts, t, s, n, na, d, da = 0, three, 3, 1, 0, 0, 24
while s != lasts:
lasts = s
n, na = n+na, na+8
d, da = d+da, da+32
t = (t * n) / d
s += t
getcontext().prec -= 2
return +s # unary plus applies the new precision
I was not able to find any reference for what formula or fact about $pi$ this computation uses, hence this question.
Translating from code into more typical mathematical notation, and using some calculation and observation, this amounts to a formula for $pi$ that begins like:
$$begin{align}pi
&= 3+frac{1}{8}+frac{9}{640}+frac{15}{7168}+frac{35}{98304}+frac{189}{2883584}+frac{693}{54525952}+frac{429}{167772160} + dots\
&= 3left(1+frac{1}{24}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}frac{169}{840}+dotsright)
end{align}$$
or, more compactly,
$$pi = 3left(1 + sum_{n=1}^{infty}prod_{k=1}^{n}frac{(2k-1)^2}{8k(2k+1)}right)$$
Is this a well-known formula for $pi$? How is it proved? How does it compare to other methods, in terms of how how quickly it converges, numerical stability issues, etc? At a glance I didn't see it on the Wikipedia page for List of formulae involving π or on the MathWorld page for Pi Formulas.
sequences-and-series convergence computational-mathematics pi
add a comment |
(Don't be alarmed by the title; this is a question about mathematics, not programming.)
In the documentation for the decimal
module in the Python Standard Library, an example is given for computing the digits of $pi$ to a given precision:
def pi():
"""Compute Pi to the current precision.
>>> print(pi())
3.141592653589793238462643383
"""
getcontext().prec += 2 # extra digits for intermediate steps
three = Decimal(3) # substitute "three=3.0" for regular floats
lasts, t, s, n, na, d, da = 0, three, 3, 1, 0, 0, 24
while s != lasts:
lasts = s
n, na = n+na, na+8
d, da = d+da, da+32
t = (t * n) / d
s += t
getcontext().prec -= 2
return +s # unary plus applies the new precision
I was not able to find any reference for what formula or fact about $pi$ this computation uses, hence this question.
Translating from code into more typical mathematical notation, and using some calculation and observation, this amounts to a formula for $pi$ that begins like:
$$begin{align}pi
&= 3+frac{1}{8}+frac{9}{640}+frac{15}{7168}+frac{35}{98304}+frac{189}{2883584}+frac{693}{54525952}+frac{429}{167772160} + dots\
&= 3left(1+frac{1}{24}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}frac{169}{840}+dotsright)
end{align}$$
or, more compactly,
$$pi = 3left(1 + sum_{n=1}^{infty}prod_{k=1}^{n}frac{(2k-1)^2}{8k(2k+1)}right)$$
Is this a well-known formula for $pi$? How is it proved? How does it compare to other methods, in terms of how how quickly it converges, numerical stability issues, etc? At a glance I didn't see it on the Wikipedia page for List of formulae involving π or on the MathWorld page for Pi Formulas.
sequences-and-series convergence computational-mathematics pi
2
Related: commit which added it in 2004 (before 2.4?), old discussion from around 2009: lists.gt.net/python/python/792780?do=post_view_threaded
– muru
Dec 7 at 9:43
4
So Raymond Hettinger got it from "The Joy of Pi": Check out @raymondh’s Tweet: twitter.com/raymondh/status/1071215064894529536?s=09
– muru
Dec 8 at 5:29
add a comment |
(Don't be alarmed by the title; this is a question about mathematics, not programming.)
In the documentation for the decimal
module in the Python Standard Library, an example is given for computing the digits of $pi$ to a given precision:
def pi():
"""Compute Pi to the current precision.
>>> print(pi())
3.141592653589793238462643383
"""
getcontext().prec += 2 # extra digits for intermediate steps
three = Decimal(3) # substitute "three=3.0" for regular floats
lasts, t, s, n, na, d, da = 0, three, 3, 1, 0, 0, 24
while s != lasts:
lasts = s
n, na = n+na, na+8
d, da = d+da, da+32
t = (t * n) / d
s += t
getcontext().prec -= 2
return +s # unary plus applies the new precision
I was not able to find any reference for what formula or fact about $pi$ this computation uses, hence this question.
Translating from code into more typical mathematical notation, and using some calculation and observation, this amounts to a formula for $pi$ that begins like:
$$begin{align}pi
&= 3+frac{1}{8}+frac{9}{640}+frac{15}{7168}+frac{35}{98304}+frac{189}{2883584}+frac{693}{54525952}+frac{429}{167772160} + dots\
&= 3left(1+frac{1}{24}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}frac{169}{840}+dotsright)
end{align}$$
or, more compactly,
$$pi = 3left(1 + sum_{n=1}^{infty}prod_{k=1}^{n}frac{(2k-1)^2}{8k(2k+1)}right)$$
Is this a well-known formula for $pi$? How is it proved? How does it compare to other methods, in terms of how how quickly it converges, numerical stability issues, etc? At a glance I didn't see it on the Wikipedia page for List of formulae involving π or on the MathWorld page for Pi Formulas.
sequences-and-series convergence computational-mathematics pi
(Don't be alarmed by the title; this is a question about mathematics, not programming.)
In the documentation for the decimal
module in the Python Standard Library, an example is given for computing the digits of $pi$ to a given precision:
def pi():
"""Compute Pi to the current precision.
>>> print(pi())
3.141592653589793238462643383
"""
getcontext().prec += 2 # extra digits for intermediate steps
three = Decimal(3) # substitute "three=3.0" for regular floats
lasts, t, s, n, na, d, da = 0, three, 3, 1, 0, 0, 24
while s != lasts:
lasts = s
n, na = n+na, na+8
d, da = d+da, da+32
t = (t * n) / d
s += t
getcontext().prec -= 2
return +s # unary plus applies the new precision
I was not able to find any reference for what formula or fact about $pi$ this computation uses, hence this question.
Translating from code into more typical mathematical notation, and using some calculation and observation, this amounts to a formula for $pi$ that begins like:
$$begin{align}pi
&= 3+frac{1}{8}+frac{9}{640}+frac{15}{7168}+frac{35}{98304}+frac{189}{2883584}+frac{693}{54525952}+frac{429}{167772160} + dots\
&= 3left(1+frac{1}{24}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}+frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}frac{49}{288}frac{81}{440}frac{121}{624}frac{169}{840}+dotsright)
end{align}$$
or, more compactly,
$$pi = 3left(1 + sum_{n=1}^{infty}prod_{k=1}^{n}frac{(2k-1)^2}{8k(2k+1)}right)$$
Is this a well-known formula for $pi$? How is it proved? How does it compare to other methods, in terms of how how quickly it converges, numerical stability issues, etc? At a glance I didn't see it on the Wikipedia page for List of formulae involving π or on the MathWorld page for Pi Formulas.
sequences-and-series convergence computational-mathematics pi
sequences-and-series convergence computational-mathematics pi
asked Dec 6 at 18:32
ShreevatsaR
34.4k668105
34.4k668105
2
Related: commit which added it in 2004 (before 2.4?), old discussion from around 2009: lists.gt.net/python/python/792780?do=post_view_threaded
– muru
Dec 7 at 9:43
4
So Raymond Hettinger got it from "The Joy of Pi": Check out @raymondh’s Tweet: twitter.com/raymondh/status/1071215064894529536?s=09
– muru
Dec 8 at 5:29
add a comment |
2
Related: commit which added it in 2004 (before 2.4?), old discussion from around 2009: lists.gt.net/python/python/792780?do=post_view_threaded
– muru
Dec 7 at 9:43
4
So Raymond Hettinger got it from "The Joy of Pi": Check out @raymondh’s Tweet: twitter.com/raymondh/status/1071215064894529536?s=09
– muru
Dec 8 at 5:29
2
2
Related: commit which added it in 2004 (before 2.4?), old discussion from around 2009: lists.gt.net/python/python/792780?do=post_view_threaded
– muru
Dec 7 at 9:43
Related: commit which added it in 2004 (before 2.4?), old discussion from around 2009: lists.gt.net/python/python/792780?do=post_view_threaded
– muru
Dec 7 at 9:43
4
4
So Raymond Hettinger got it from "The Joy of Pi": Check out @raymondh’s Tweet: twitter.com/raymondh/status/1071215064894529536?s=09
– muru
Dec 8 at 5:29
So Raymond Hettinger got it from "The Joy of Pi": Check out @raymondh’s Tweet: twitter.com/raymondh/status/1071215064894529536?s=09
– muru
Dec 8 at 5:29
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
This approximation for $pi$ is attributed to Issac Newton:
- https://loresayer.com/2016/03/14/pi-infinite-sum-approximation/
- http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html
- http://www.pi314.net/eng/newton.php
When I wrote that code shown in the Python docs, I got the formula came from p.53 in "The Joy of π". Of the many formulas listed, it was the first that:
- converged quickly,
- was short,
- was something I understood well-enough to derive by hand, and
- could be implemented using cheap operations: several additions with only a single multiply and single divide for each term. This allowed the estimate of $pi$ to be easily be written as an efficient function using Python's floats, or with the decimal module, or with Python's multi-precision integers.
The formula solves for π in the equation $sin(pi/6)=frac{1}{2}$.
WolframAlpha gives the Maclaurin series for $6 arcsin{(x)}$ as:
$$6 arcsin{(x)} = 6 x + x^{3} + frac{9 x^{5}}{20} + frac{15 x^{7}}{56} + frac{35 x^{9}}{192} + dots
$$
Evaluating the series at $x = frac{1}{2}$ gives:
$$
pi approx 3+3 frac{1}{24}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+dots + frac{(2k+1)^2}{16k^2+40k+24} + dots\
$$
From there, I used finite differences, to incrementally compute the numerators and denominators. The numerator differences were 8, 16, 24, ...
, hence the numerator adjustment na+8
in the code. The denominator differences were 56, 88, 120, ...
, hence the denominator adjustment da+32
in the code:
1 9 25 49 numerators
8 16 24 1st differences
8 8 2nd differences
24 80 168 288 denominator
56 88 120 1st differences
32 32 2nd differences
Here is the original code I wrote back in 1999 using Python's multi-precision integers (this predates the decimal module):
def pi(places=10):
"Computes pi to given number of decimal places"
# From p.53 in "The Joy of Pi". sin(pi/6) = 1/2
# 3 + 3*(1/24) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80)*(25/168)
# The numerators 1, 9, 25, ... are given by (2x + 1) ^ 2
# The denominators 24, 80, 168 are given by 16x^2 +40x + 24
extra = 8
one = 10 ** (places+extra)
t, c, n, na, d, da = 3*one, 3*one, 1, 0, 0, 24
while t > 1:
n, na, d, da = n+na, na+8, d+da, da+32
t = t * n // d
c += t
return c // (10 ** extra)
6
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
1
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
add a comment |
That is the Taylor series of $arcsin(x)$ at $x=1/2$ (times 6).
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
4
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
add a comment |
It just computing $pi = 6sin^{-1}left(frac12right)$ using the Taylor series expansion of
arcsine. For reference,
$$6sin^{-1}frac{t}{2} = 3t+frac{t^3}{8}+frac{9t^5}{640}+frac{15t^7}{7168}+frac{35 t^9}{98304} + cdots$$
and compare the coefficients with what you get.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028868%2fwhat-is-the-formula-for-pi-used-in-the-python-decimal-library%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This approximation for $pi$ is attributed to Issac Newton:
- https://loresayer.com/2016/03/14/pi-infinite-sum-approximation/
- http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html
- http://www.pi314.net/eng/newton.php
When I wrote that code shown in the Python docs, I got the formula came from p.53 in "The Joy of π". Of the many formulas listed, it was the first that:
- converged quickly,
- was short,
- was something I understood well-enough to derive by hand, and
- could be implemented using cheap operations: several additions with only a single multiply and single divide for each term. This allowed the estimate of $pi$ to be easily be written as an efficient function using Python's floats, or with the decimal module, or with Python's multi-precision integers.
The formula solves for π in the equation $sin(pi/6)=frac{1}{2}$.
WolframAlpha gives the Maclaurin series for $6 arcsin{(x)}$ as:
$$6 arcsin{(x)} = 6 x + x^{3} + frac{9 x^{5}}{20} + frac{15 x^{7}}{56} + frac{35 x^{9}}{192} + dots
$$
Evaluating the series at $x = frac{1}{2}$ gives:
$$
pi approx 3+3 frac{1}{24}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+dots + frac{(2k+1)^2}{16k^2+40k+24} + dots\
$$
From there, I used finite differences, to incrementally compute the numerators and denominators. The numerator differences were 8, 16, 24, ...
, hence the numerator adjustment na+8
in the code. The denominator differences were 56, 88, 120, ...
, hence the denominator adjustment da+32
in the code:
1 9 25 49 numerators
8 16 24 1st differences
8 8 2nd differences
24 80 168 288 denominator
56 88 120 1st differences
32 32 2nd differences
Here is the original code I wrote back in 1999 using Python's multi-precision integers (this predates the decimal module):
def pi(places=10):
"Computes pi to given number of decimal places"
# From p.53 in "The Joy of Pi". sin(pi/6) = 1/2
# 3 + 3*(1/24) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80)*(25/168)
# The numerators 1, 9, 25, ... are given by (2x + 1) ^ 2
# The denominators 24, 80, 168 are given by 16x^2 +40x + 24
extra = 8
one = 10 ** (places+extra)
t, c, n, na, d, da = 3*one, 3*one, 1, 0, 0, 24
while t > 1:
n, na, d, da = n+na, na+8, d+da, da+32
t = t * n // d
c += t
return c // (10 ** extra)
6
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
1
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
add a comment |
This approximation for $pi$ is attributed to Issac Newton:
- https://loresayer.com/2016/03/14/pi-infinite-sum-approximation/
- http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html
- http://www.pi314.net/eng/newton.php
When I wrote that code shown in the Python docs, I got the formula came from p.53 in "The Joy of π". Of the many formulas listed, it was the first that:
- converged quickly,
- was short,
- was something I understood well-enough to derive by hand, and
- could be implemented using cheap operations: several additions with only a single multiply and single divide for each term. This allowed the estimate of $pi$ to be easily be written as an efficient function using Python's floats, or with the decimal module, or with Python's multi-precision integers.
The formula solves for π in the equation $sin(pi/6)=frac{1}{2}$.
WolframAlpha gives the Maclaurin series for $6 arcsin{(x)}$ as:
$$6 arcsin{(x)} = 6 x + x^{3} + frac{9 x^{5}}{20} + frac{15 x^{7}}{56} + frac{35 x^{9}}{192} + dots
$$
Evaluating the series at $x = frac{1}{2}$ gives:
$$
pi approx 3+3 frac{1}{24}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+dots + frac{(2k+1)^2}{16k^2+40k+24} + dots\
$$
From there, I used finite differences, to incrementally compute the numerators and denominators. The numerator differences were 8, 16, 24, ...
, hence the numerator adjustment na+8
in the code. The denominator differences were 56, 88, 120, ...
, hence the denominator adjustment da+32
in the code:
1 9 25 49 numerators
8 16 24 1st differences
8 8 2nd differences
24 80 168 288 denominator
56 88 120 1st differences
32 32 2nd differences
Here is the original code I wrote back in 1999 using Python's multi-precision integers (this predates the decimal module):
def pi(places=10):
"Computes pi to given number of decimal places"
# From p.53 in "The Joy of Pi". sin(pi/6) = 1/2
# 3 + 3*(1/24) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80)*(25/168)
# The numerators 1, 9, 25, ... are given by (2x + 1) ^ 2
# The denominators 24, 80, 168 are given by 16x^2 +40x + 24
extra = 8
one = 10 ** (places+extra)
t, c, n, na, d, da = 3*one, 3*one, 1, 0, 0, 24
while t > 1:
n, na, d, da = n+na, na+8, d+da, da+32
t = t * n // d
c += t
return c // (10 ** extra)
6
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
1
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
add a comment |
This approximation for $pi$ is attributed to Issac Newton:
- https://loresayer.com/2016/03/14/pi-infinite-sum-approximation/
- http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html
- http://www.pi314.net/eng/newton.php
When I wrote that code shown in the Python docs, I got the formula came from p.53 in "The Joy of π". Of the many formulas listed, it was the first that:
- converged quickly,
- was short,
- was something I understood well-enough to derive by hand, and
- could be implemented using cheap operations: several additions with only a single multiply and single divide for each term. This allowed the estimate of $pi$ to be easily be written as an efficient function using Python's floats, or with the decimal module, or with Python's multi-precision integers.
The formula solves for π in the equation $sin(pi/6)=frac{1}{2}$.
WolframAlpha gives the Maclaurin series for $6 arcsin{(x)}$ as:
$$6 arcsin{(x)} = 6 x + x^{3} + frac{9 x^{5}}{20} + frac{15 x^{7}}{56} + frac{35 x^{9}}{192} + dots
$$
Evaluating the series at $x = frac{1}{2}$ gives:
$$
pi approx 3+3 frac{1}{24}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+dots + frac{(2k+1)^2}{16k^2+40k+24} + dots\
$$
From there, I used finite differences, to incrementally compute the numerators and denominators. The numerator differences were 8, 16, 24, ...
, hence the numerator adjustment na+8
in the code. The denominator differences were 56, 88, 120, ...
, hence the denominator adjustment da+32
in the code:
1 9 25 49 numerators
8 16 24 1st differences
8 8 2nd differences
24 80 168 288 denominator
56 88 120 1st differences
32 32 2nd differences
Here is the original code I wrote back in 1999 using Python's multi-precision integers (this predates the decimal module):
def pi(places=10):
"Computes pi to given number of decimal places"
# From p.53 in "The Joy of Pi". sin(pi/6) = 1/2
# 3 + 3*(1/24) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80)*(25/168)
# The numerators 1, 9, 25, ... are given by (2x + 1) ^ 2
# The denominators 24, 80, 168 are given by 16x^2 +40x + 24
extra = 8
one = 10 ** (places+extra)
t, c, n, na, d, da = 3*one, 3*one, 1, 0, 0, 24
while t > 1:
n, na, d, da = n+na, na+8, d+da, da+32
t = t * n // d
c += t
return c // (10 ** extra)
This approximation for $pi$ is attributed to Issac Newton:
- https://loresayer.com/2016/03/14/pi-infinite-sum-approximation/
- http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~huberty/math5337/groupe/expresspi.html
- http://www.pi314.net/eng/newton.php
When I wrote that code shown in the Python docs, I got the formula came from p.53 in "The Joy of π". Of the many formulas listed, it was the first that:
- converged quickly,
- was short,
- was something I understood well-enough to derive by hand, and
- could be implemented using cheap operations: several additions with only a single multiply and single divide for each term. This allowed the estimate of $pi$ to be easily be written as an efficient function using Python's floats, or with the decimal module, or with Python's multi-precision integers.
The formula solves for π in the equation $sin(pi/6)=frac{1}{2}$.
WolframAlpha gives the Maclaurin series for $6 arcsin{(x)}$ as:
$$6 arcsin{(x)} = 6 x + x^{3} + frac{9 x^{5}}{20} + frac{15 x^{7}}{56} + frac{35 x^{9}}{192} + dots
$$
Evaluating the series at $x = frac{1}{2}$ gives:
$$
pi approx 3+3 frac{1}{24}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}+3 frac{1}{24}frac{9}{80}frac{25}{168}+dots + frac{(2k+1)^2}{16k^2+40k+24} + dots\
$$
From there, I used finite differences, to incrementally compute the numerators and denominators. The numerator differences were 8, 16, 24, ...
, hence the numerator adjustment na+8
in the code. The denominator differences were 56, 88, 120, ...
, hence the denominator adjustment da+32
in the code:
1 9 25 49 numerators
8 16 24 1st differences
8 8 2nd differences
24 80 168 288 denominator
56 88 120 1st differences
32 32 2nd differences
Here is the original code I wrote back in 1999 using Python's multi-precision integers (this predates the decimal module):
def pi(places=10):
"Computes pi to given number of decimal places"
# From p.53 in "The Joy of Pi". sin(pi/6) = 1/2
# 3 + 3*(1/24) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80) + 3*(1/24)*(9/80)*(25/168)
# The numerators 1, 9, 25, ... are given by (2x + 1) ^ 2
# The denominators 24, 80, 168 are given by 16x^2 +40x + 24
extra = 8
one = 10 ** (places+extra)
t, c, n, na, d, da = 3*one, 3*one, 1, 0, 0, 24
while t > 1:
n, na, d, da = n+na, na+8, d+da, da+32
t = t * n // d
c += t
return c // (10 ** extra)
edited Dec 13 at 8:21
answered Dec 8 at 19:26
Raymond Hettinger
44919
44919
6
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
1
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
add a comment |
6
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
1
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
6
6
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Thank you, great to hear from the original author of the code!
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 8 at 19:34
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
Can you explain how you rearranged $pi = 3+1/8+cdots $ to $pi= 3+1/24+cdots$?
– tarit goswami
Dec 12 at 7:50
1
1
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
@taritgoswami That was a typo, the latter should have been $pi = 3 + 3(1/24) + 3(1/24)(9/80) ...$ . It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing.
– Raymond Hettinger
Dec 13 at 7:54
add a comment |
That is the Taylor series of $arcsin(x)$ at $x=1/2$ (times 6).
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
4
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
add a comment |
That is the Taylor series of $arcsin(x)$ at $x=1/2$ (times 6).
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
4
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
add a comment |
That is the Taylor series of $arcsin(x)$ at $x=1/2$ (times 6).
That is the Taylor series of $arcsin(x)$ at $x=1/2$ (times 6).
answered Dec 6 at 19:01
mlerma54
1,087138
1,087138
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
4
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
add a comment |
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
4
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
Thanks, would you know anything about how it compares to other methods? E.g. I imagine it's better than the Leibniz formula for π which converges very slowly, and worse than the best methods.
– ShreevatsaR
Dec 6 at 19:56
4
4
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
Leibniz formula for $pi$ has very slow convergence. Formulas using power series based on inverse trigonometric functions (like the one above) converge much faster, but there are even faster algorithms such as Brent-Salamin (which doubles the number of correct digits in each iteration). There is a chronology here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:45
2
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
Dec 6 at 21:52
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
@mlerma54: Note that the Leibniz series too can be viewed as being "based on inverse trigonometric functions" -- it corresponds to $4arctan(1)$, with the series for the arctangent evaluated right at its radius of convergence.
– Henning Makholm
Dec 7 at 2:15
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
Yes, that is correct, Leibniz formula for $pi$ can be seen as based on the Taylor series for $arctan(x) = x - frac{x^3}{3} + frac{x^5}{5} - frac{x^7}{7} + cdots$, but evaluated at a particularly "bad" place ($x=1$), so it does not take advantage of the exponential convergence of the $n$th term that we see in the other power series such as $arcsin(x)$ evaluated at $1/2$, and a few other such as 1706 Machin's $frac{pi}{4} = 4arctan{frac{1}{5}} - arctan{frac{1}{239}}$.
– mlerma54
Dec 7 at 3:38
add a comment |
It just computing $pi = 6sin^{-1}left(frac12right)$ using the Taylor series expansion of
arcsine. For reference,
$$6sin^{-1}frac{t}{2} = 3t+frac{t^3}{8}+frac{9t^5}{640}+frac{15t^7}{7168}+frac{35 t^9}{98304} + cdots$$
and compare the coefficients with what you get.
add a comment |
It just computing $pi = 6sin^{-1}left(frac12right)$ using the Taylor series expansion of
arcsine. For reference,
$$6sin^{-1}frac{t}{2} = 3t+frac{t^3}{8}+frac{9t^5}{640}+frac{15t^7}{7168}+frac{35 t^9}{98304} + cdots$$
and compare the coefficients with what you get.
add a comment |
It just computing $pi = 6sin^{-1}left(frac12right)$ using the Taylor series expansion of
arcsine. For reference,
$$6sin^{-1}frac{t}{2} = 3t+frac{t^3}{8}+frac{9t^5}{640}+frac{15t^7}{7168}+frac{35 t^9}{98304} + cdots$$
and compare the coefficients with what you get.
It just computing $pi = 6sin^{-1}left(frac12right)$ using the Taylor series expansion of
arcsine. For reference,
$$6sin^{-1}frac{t}{2} = 3t+frac{t^3}{8}+frac{9t^5}{640}+frac{15t^7}{7168}+frac{35 t^9}{98304} + cdots$$
and compare the coefficients with what you get.
answered Dec 6 at 19:02
achille hui
95.2k5129256
95.2k5129256
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028868%2fwhat-is-the-formula-for-pi-used-in-the-python-decimal-library%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Related: commit which added it in 2004 (before 2.4?), old discussion from around 2009: lists.gt.net/python/python/792780?do=post_view_threaded
– muru
Dec 7 at 9:43
4
So Raymond Hettinger got it from "The Joy of Pi": Check out @raymondh’s Tweet: twitter.com/raymondh/status/1071215064894529536?s=09
– muru
Dec 8 at 5:29