What is the formula for pi used in the Python decimal library?
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
(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 |
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
(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
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
17 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
(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 yesterday
ShreevatsaR
34.2k568105
34.2k568105
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
17 hours ago
add a comment |
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
17 hours ago
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
17 hours ago
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
17 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
36
down vote
accepted
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
yesterday
3
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
yesterday
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
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.
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
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
36
down vote
accepted
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
yesterday
3
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
yesterday
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
36
down vote
accepted
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
yesterday
3
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
yesterday
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
36
down vote
accepted
up vote
36
down vote
accepted
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 yesterday
mlerma54
83438
83438
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
yesterday
3
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
yesterday
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
23 hours ago
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
yesterday
3
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
yesterday
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
23 hours ago
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
3
3
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
2
2
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
Here is a very fast algorithm for computing $pi$ and its implementation in python: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chudnovsky_algorithm
– mlerma54
yesterday
@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
yesterday
@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
yesterday
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
23 hours ago
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
23 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
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.
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
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
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.
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
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
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 yesterday
achille hui
94.8k5129255
94.8k5129255
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
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
17 hours ago