2

Possible Duplicate:
Simple numerical methods for calculating the digits of Pi
How the letter 'pi' came in mathematics?

When I calculate the value of $22/7$ on a calculator, I get a number that is different from the constant $\pi$.

Question: How is the $\pi$ constant calculated? (The simple answer, not the Wikipedia calculus answer.)

  • 19
    No, pi is not equal to $22/7$. – Mikko Korhonen Dec 21 '11 at 15:45
  • 5
    Indeed; $\pi$ cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers. There are a number of methods for computing $\pi$, however. – J. M. ain't a mathematician Dec 21 '11 at 15:49
  • 10
    As a primary school pupil in England, I was told that $\pi = \frac{22}{7}$. This was bad education. The rational number $\frac{22}{7}$ is a commonly used APPROXIMATION for $\pi,$ useful in some practical calculations where absolute accuracy is not essential. But $\pi$ is an irrational (even transcendental) number, so is certainly not equal to the rational number $\frac{22}{7}.$ The calculation of $\pi$ to any desired degree of accuracy is the subject of much mathematics, and I am sure you will receive informative answers here. – Geoff Robinson Dec 21 '11 at 15:51
  • A calculator has memorized value of $\pi$ to some fixed precision (say, 10 digits), when you ask for it, it does not "compute" $\pi$, but recall that value. For methods to compute $\pi$, see J.M.'s link. You have to swallow a bit of calculus, since $\pi$ is not rational and to define it as a real number you need a property specific to reals (completeness). – sdcvvc Dec 21 '11 at 15:57
  • 2
    If I recall correctly, 22/7 is the perimeter of the regular 96-gon that circumscribes a circle of radius 1, as shown by Archimedes (this method leads to one way to compute $\pi$). – David Mitra Dec 21 '11 at 15:58
  • 8
    When I was in grade school, our teacher taught us that $\pi$ was exactly $\frac{22}7$, and that its decimal expansion did not repeat. My first mathematical proof ever was to convince myself and a friend that the decimal expansion of any rational number must terminate or repeat. – Thomas Andrews Dec 21 '11 at 16:02
  • 1
    Hey Kurt: see that little tag [pi] below your question? If you click that, it will take you to well-answered (and well-asked...) questions about pi. – The Chaz 2.0 Dec 21 '11 at 16:22
  • @J.M. Should we close this as a duplicate of that question? – Zev Chonoles Dec 21 '11 at 16:44
  • @Zev: for me, it seems to be a toss-up between that and this. In short, I ain't sure. Anybody else here who can help Zev out? – J. M. ain't a mathematician Dec 21 '11 at 16:51
  • @J.M.: It can be closed as duplicate of more than one question. Now that I and t.b. have voted with different questions, if it finishes being closed as duplicate, both will be automatically displayed. – Jonas Meyer Dec 21 '11 at 17:03
  • 8
    @Geoff Robinson: I suspect the prevalence of stories such as yours comes from bad writing (textbook authors, at least in pre-calculator times, saying something like "In the problems below, use $\pi = \frac{22}{7}$) in conjunction with clueless teachers. That is, teachers see $\pi = \frac{22}{7}$ written in a book and take the statement out of context, and textbook authors write something like this without realizing the possible consequences of their poor wording. – Dave L. Renfro Dec 21 '11 at 17:06
  • 1
    @Dave: Quite possibly. – Geoff Robinson Dec 21 '11 at 17:23
  • @GeoffRobinson and others, think that's bad? I had a teacher in primary school who was teaching decimals and said "(...) 0,8 and 0,9 then 0,10 and 0,11", stopping confused, fortunately correcting herself (admitting no error from her somehow) the following lesson. I didn't really learn pi until I got another teacher. It was exactly 3,1416 and those 4 repeated before then. – JMCF125 Jul 13 '13 at 19:23
  • @DaveL.Renfro, a good teacher knows essential stuff better than the book. Though you're probably right with bad ones. – JMCF125 Jul 13 '13 at 19:25
  • The idea of pi being "22/7" is surely one of the silliest things taught in schools - and that's saying something. So many people have this confusion, thanks to crap school systems. – Fattie Nov 30 '15 at 05:06

4 Answers4

8

$\pi$ is not equal to $22/7$. As a matter of fact, it cannot be expresses as a ratio of two whole numbers at all. It is a transcendental number, i.e. not algebraic, i.e. there exists no algebraic equation $\displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^Na_ix^i = 0$ that has $\pi$ as its root. We can only approximate the value of $\pi$. This has been proven by Ferdinand von Lindemann in the 19th century. I suggest you read more about transcendental numbers to get more familiar with the concept.

  • 1
    Thanks, you are right. I wrote a paper on the transcendentals and thought I had remembered who proved it, but looks like I got things messed up. –  Dec 21 '11 at 16:52
  • 1
    Looks like my math teachers in high school were way wrong. Thanks everyone for the insight. –  Dec 22 '11 at 16:11
3

In answer to your second question, NOVA has an interactive exhibit that uses something like Archimedes method for approximating $\pi$. Archimedes method predates calculus, but uses many of its concepts.

Note that "simple" and "calculus" are not disjoint concepts.

deinst
  • 5,646
3

Pi ($\pi$) is a mathematically defined, a priori constant, one definition being the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. In some places, it also has (had) a (mathematically inaccurate) legal definition. The mathematical definition is universally agreed upon. In the decimal number system, it has an infinite decimal expansion, and so cannot be represented (mathematically) exactly as a decimal number (in a finite amount of space). For most non-mathematical purposes, (e.g. architecture, agriculture), accuracy past a few decimal places is not necessary. For astronomy, aviation & aeronotics, more accuracy is usually needed -- maybe ten or twenty decimal places (please correct me if I'm wrong). The estimation of $\pi$ has a very long history (compared to the span of recorded history and of the history of mathematics). There are in turn many books on Pi. For example, The Joy of Pi & A History of Pi to name a few.

There are even more methods of calculating $\pi$, including, amazingly, some relatively recent developments. Perhaps the easiest method, if you want to avoid advanced mathematics (and calculus is too advanced) and take a few things on faith, is to use simple geometry and rely on a trigonometry function (which could be argued is circular reasoning since we will use the fact that $360$ degrees equals $2\pi$ radians). You can use, for example, the area of a regular $n$-gon (for $n$ large) with vertices on a circle of radius $1$ as an approximation for $\pi$. This area is then $$ A_n=n\cdot\sin\frac{\theta_n}{2}\cos\frac{\theta_n}{2}=\frac{n}{2}sin\theta_n \qquad\text{for}\qquad \theta_n=\frac{360\text{ deg}}{n}=\frac{2\pi}{n}\text{ (rad)} $$ (draw a triangle from the center to two adjacent vertices, bisect this triangle by a line from the center to the midpoint of the vertices, calculate lengths, the area of this whole triangle, and multiply by the number of these which is $n$). With a little calculus knowledge, we can also verify that in fact (when $\theta_n$ is in radians!), $$ \lim_{n \to \infty}A_n= \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{sin\frac{2\pi}{n}}{\frac{2}{n}}= \lim_{x \to 0}\frac{\sin\pi x}{x}=\pi\;. $$ A more recently found formula (Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe, 1995) whose statement requires not so much math is $$ \pi=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( \frac{4}{8n+1} - \frac{2}{8n+4} - \frac{1}{8n+5} - \frac{1}{8n+6} \right) \left( \frac{1}{16} \right)^n $$ which converges very quickly to the answer, i.e., not very many terms are needed to get any given desired accuracy, since as can be seen, the $n$th term is (much) less than $16^{-n}$, so that the first $n$ terms easily give $n$ hexadecimal (base 16) digits, or $n\log{16}\simeq{1.2n}$ decimal places of accuracy.

The (early) history of approximations to $\pi$ can also be (roughly) traced by the its (various) continued fraction expansions, e.g. $\pi = 3 + \frac{1}{7+}\frac{1}{15+}\frac{1}{1+}\frac{1}{292+}\dots$, with the number of terms used increasing (roughly!) with historical time; so $3$ is the simplest approximation, then $22/7$, then $333/106$, etc.

bgins
  • 7,990
2

As already mentioned by others, $\pi \neq 22/7$. To answer your question, how to compute digits of $\pi$, $\pi$ can be obtained as a limit of sequence of numbers which can be computed to great accuracy.

For instance, the Madhava-Leibniz formula can be used to compute the digits of $\pi$. In fact, it was one of the first ways to compute the digits of $\pi$. $$\pi = 4 \times \left(1 - \frac13 + \frac15 - \frac17 + \frac19 - \cdots \right)$$ If we truncate the above series at $n$-terms, i.e. if we denote $$x_n = 4 \times \left(1 - \frac13 + \frac15 - \frac17 + \frac19 - \cdots + (-1)^{n} \frac1{2n+1}\right)$$ error analysis will give you that the $|| x_n - \pi|| \leq \left( \frac2n \right)$. The convergence of this series is hence slow. If you want an accuracy upto $2$ digits, you need to take of the order of $200$ terms.

There are other well-known series/ products which converge to $\pi$.

  • "In some places, it also has (had) a (mathematically inaccurate) legal definition." – user247327 Jul 17 '15 at 17:12
  • The Leibniz series was not "one of the first ways to compute digits of $\pi$" -- in fact it converges so impossibly slowly that it's barely even a way to compute anything at all. Archimedes had better methods more than millennium earlier (though he didn't use digits, but that's hardly relevant here). – hmakholm left over Monica Nov 11 '16 at 18:26