Pi approximations are expressions whose values are close to pi. Throughout this entry, accuracy to decimal digits means that
the absolute error is less than
. The simplest pi approximations are the convergents
of the pi continued fractions. The first
few are given by 3, 22/7, 333/106, 355/113, 103993/33102, 104348/33215, ... (OEIS
A002485 and A002486),
which are good to 0, 2, 4, 6, 9, 9, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 13, ... (OEIS A114526)
decimal digits, respectively.
Two approximations follow from the near-identity function
evaluated at
and
, giving
|
(1)
| |||
|
(2)
|
which are good to 2 and 3 decimal digits, respectively. Kochanski's approximation is the root of
|
(3)
|
given by
|
(4)
|
which is good to 4 decimal digits.
Other approximations include
|
(5)
| |||
|
(6)
|
(P. B. S. Bueser, pers. comm., Sep. 25, 2026), which are good to 4 and 5 decimal digits, respectively.
A simple power approximation is
|
(7)
|
which is good to 4 decimal digits.
E. Weisstein (using Wolfram|Alpha, Oct. 29, 2026) obtained the approximations
|
(8)
| |||
|
(9)
| |||
|
(10)
|
which are good to 14, 7, and 6 decimal digits, respectively. The same search gave the root of
|
(11)
|
which approximates
to 9 decimal digits.
An approximation involving Apéry's constant is
|
(12)
|
which is good to 5 decimal digits (V. Muleva, pers. comm., Sep. 17, 2022).
Another curious fact is the almost integer
|
(13)
|
which can also be written as
|
(14)
|
|
(15)
|
Here,
is Gelfond's constant. Applying cosine
a few more times gives
|
(16)
|
Another approximation involving is given by
|
(17)
|
which is good to 3 decimal digits (A. Povolotsky, pers. comm., Mar. 6, 2008).
An apparently interesting near-identity is given by
|
(18)
|
which becomes less surprising when it is noted that 555555 is a repdigit, so the above is just a special case of the near-identity
|
(19)
| |||
|
(20)
|
with
and
.
An approximation involving the golden ratio arises from the volume
of the canonical tetragonal
antiwedge with unit midradius, namely
|
(21)
| |||
|
(22)
| |||
|
(23)
|
(cf. Pegg 2018), which is good to 3 decimal digits. Another approximation involving is
|
(24)
| |||
|
(25)
| |||
|
(26)
| |||
|
(27)
|
which is good to 4 decimal digits. A similar approximation due to S. Mircea-Mugurel (pers. comm., Oct. 30, 2002) is given by
|
(28)
|
which however is only good to two decimal places. Another approximation involving the golden ratio is given by
|
(29)
|
which is good to 7 decimal digits (K. Rashid, pers. comm.).
Some approximations due to Ramanujan include
|
(30)
| |||
|
(31)
| |||
|
(32)
| |||
|
(33)
| |||
|
(34)
| |||
|
(35)
| |||
|
(36)
| |||
|
(37)
| |||
|
(38)
| |||
|
(39)
| |||
|
(40)
|
whose absolute errors are less than for
, 4, 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 15, 18,
23, 31, respectively (Ramanujan 1913-1914; Hardy 1952, p. 70; Wells 1986, p. 54;
Berndt 1994, pp. 48-49 and 88-89). Equation (33) and the
similar
|
(41)
|
are also given by Borwein and Bailey (2003, p. 135). Ramanujan also gave
|
(42)
|
(Wells 1986, p. 54).
Approximations to
can be formed as ratios of two 10-digit pandigital
numbers, each using every digit from 0 through 9 exactly
once (A. Povolotsky, pers. comm., Aug. 29, 2022). The closest such approximation
is
|
(43)
|
which approximates
to 11 decimal digits (E. Weisstein, Sep. 7,
2022). S. Irvine (pers. comm.) noted that (33), giving
an approximation to
good to 8 decimal digits, can be written in a pandigital form as
|
(44)
| |||
|
(45)
| |||
|
(46)
|
(S. Plouffe, pers. comm.; cf. Wells 1986, p. 54). E. Pegg (pers. comm.) found the pandigital approximation
|
(47)
|
which approximates
to 9 decimal digits. Another pandigital
formula is given by
|
(48)
|
(B. Astle, pers. comm., Jan. 9, 2004), which approximates to 9 decimal digits. Surpassing
both of these is the pandigital approximation
|
(49)
|
which is accurate to 12 decimal digits (B. Ziv, pers. comm., Jul. 7, 2004). A further pandigital approximation is given by
|
(50)
|
which is good to 17 decimal digits (G. W. Barbosa, pers. comm.).
M. Schneider (pers. comm., May 6, 2008) found the approximation
|
(51)
|
which is good to 4 decimal digits. P. Lindborg (pers. comm.) noted that the convergent 104348/33215 can be written in the slightly curious form
|
(52)
|
which is good to 9 decimal digits.
Other approximations due to E. Pegg include
|
(53)
|
which is good to 6 decimal digits (pers. comm., Mar. 2, 2002) and
|
(54)
|
which is good to 9 decimal digits (pers. comm., Dec. 30, 2002).
A simple approximation involving the cube root is
|
(55)
|
which is good to 3 decimal digits (M. Joseph, pers. comm., May 3, 2006).
A difference of two cube roots gives
|
(56)
|
which is good to 7 decimal digits (F. Franco, pers. comm., May 14, 2016).
A more exotic approximation is given by
|
(57)
|
which is good to 4 decimal digits (M. Joseph, pers. comm., May 3, 2006).
Castellanos (1988ab) gives a slew of curious formulas:
|
(58)
| |||
|
(59)
| |||
|
(60)
| |||
|
(61)
| |||
|
(62)
| |||
|
(63)
| |||
|
(64)
| |||
|
(65)
| |||
|
(66)
| |||
|
(67)
| |||
|
(68)
| |||
|
(69)
| |||
|
(70)
|
which are accurate to 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 decimal digits, respectively. An extremely accurate approximation due to Shanks (1982) is
|
(71)
|
where
is the product of four simple quartic units.
David W. Hoffman (pers. comm.) gave
|
(72)
|
where the numerator is one googol. This approximation is good to 10 decimal digits. The approximations
|
(73)
| |||
|
(74)
|
give 3 and 2 decimal digits, respectively (G. von Hippel, pers. comm.).
A sequence of approximations due to Plouffe and Borwein and Bailey (2003, pp. 115 and 134-135) includes
|
(75)
| |||
|
(76)
| |||
|
(77)
| |||
|
(78)
| |||
|
(79)
| |||
|
(80)
| |||
|
(81)
| |||
|
(82)
| |||
|
(83)
| |||
|
(84)
| |||
|
(85)
| |||
|
(86)
|
which are accurate to 4, 5, 7, 7, 9, 10, 11, 11, 11, 15, 23, and 30 decimal digits, respectively.
The last expression follows from the series expansion of the j-function. Carrying this one step further gives
|
(87)
|
|
(88)
|
|
(89)
|
|
(90)
|
giving
|
(91)
|
which is good to 46 decimal digits (Warda, pers. comm., Nov. 15, 2004).
Interestingly,
gives successively good approximations to
for larger and larger
(Warda, pers. comm., Nov. 22, 2004). In particular, the
number of correct decimal digits for
, 2, ... are given by 30, 28, 31, 46, 40, 44, 48,
51, 61, 57, 59, 62, 65, ... (OEIS A100935).
An approximation due to Stoschek using powers of two and the special number 163 (the largest Heegner number) is given by
|
(92)
|
which is good to 3 decimal digits. A fraction with small numerator and denominator
which gives a close approximation to is
|
(93)
|
Some approximations involving the ninth roots of rational numbers include
|
(94)
| |||
|
(95)
|
which are good to 12 and 15 decimal digits, respectively (P. Galliani, pers. comm.).
de Jerphanion (pers. comm.) found
|
(96)
|
which is good to 9 decimal digits, and J. Iuliano found
|
(97)
|
which is good to 11 decimal digits.
Definite integrals giving approximations to
were considered by Backhouse (1995) and Lucas (2005).
F. Voormanns (pers. comm., Dec. 12, 2003) found the curious astronomical approximation
|
(98)
|
where
is the numerical length of the year in days and a week is seven days. This is accurate
to 9 decimal digits for
, or 6 decimal digits
for the average Gregorian year (
) or tropical year (
).
Rivera gives other approximation formulas.