我正在寻找最快的方法来获得π的值,作为一个个人挑战。更具体地说,我使用的方法不涉及使用#define常量M_PI,或硬编码的数字。

下面的程序测试了我所知道的各种方法。从理论上讲,内联汇编版本是最快的选择,尽管显然不能移植。我将它作为一个基准,与其他版本进行比较。在我的测试中,使用内置函数,4 * atan(1)版本在GCC 4.2上是最快的,因为它自动将atan(1)折叠成一个常量。通过指定-fno-builtin, atan2(0, -1)版本是最快的。

下面是主要的测试程序(pitimes.c):

#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>

#define ITERS 10000000
#define TESTWITH(x) {                                                       \
    diff = 0.0;                                                             \
    time1 = clock();                                                        \
    for (i = 0; i < ITERS; ++i)                                             \
        diff += (x) - M_PI;                                                 \
    time2 = clock();                                                        \
    printf("%s\t=> %e, time => %f\n", #x, diff, diffclock(time2, time1));   \
}

static inline double
diffclock(clock_t time1, clock_t time0)
{
    return (double) (time1 - time0) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
}

int
main()
{
    int i;
    clock_t time1, time2;
    double diff;

    /* Warmup. The atan2 case catches GCC's atan folding (which would
     * optimise the ``4 * atan(1) - M_PI'' to a no-op), if -fno-builtin
     * is not used. */
    TESTWITH(4 * atan(1))
    TESTWITH(4 * atan2(1, 1))

#if defined(__GNUC__) && (defined(__i386__) || defined(__amd64__))
    extern double fldpi();
    TESTWITH(fldpi())
#endif

    /* Actual tests start here. */
    TESTWITH(atan2(0, -1))
    TESTWITH(acos(-1))
    TESTWITH(2 * asin(1))
    TESTWITH(4 * atan2(1, 1))
    TESTWITH(4 * atan(1))

    return 0;
}

内联汇编的东西(fldpi.c)只适用于x86和x64系统:

double
fldpi()
{
    double pi;
    asm("fldpi" : "=t" (pi));
    return pi;
}

和一个构建脚本,构建我正在测试的所有配置(build.sh):

#!/bin/sh
gcc -O3 -Wall -c           -m32 -o fldpi-32.o fldpi.c
gcc -O3 -Wall -c           -m64 -o fldpi-64.o fldpi.c

gcc -O3 -Wall -ffast-math  -m32 -o pitimes1-32 pitimes.c fldpi-32.o
gcc -O3 -Wall              -m32 -o pitimes2-32 pitimes.c fldpi-32.o -lm
gcc -O3 -Wall -fno-builtin -m32 -o pitimes3-32 pitimes.c fldpi-32.o -lm
gcc -O3 -Wall -ffast-math  -m64 -o pitimes1-64 pitimes.c fldpi-64.o -lm
gcc -O3 -Wall              -m64 -o pitimes2-64 pitimes.c fldpi-64.o -lm
gcc -O3 -Wall -fno-builtin -m64 -o pitimes3-64 pitimes.c fldpi-64.o -lm

除了在各种编译器标志之间进行测试(我也比较了32位和64位,因为优化是不同的),我还尝试切换测试的顺序。但是,atan2(0, -1)版本在每次测试中仍然名列前茅。


当前回答

使用machine -like公式

176 * arctan (1/57) + 28 * arctan (1/239) - 48 * arctan (1/682) + 96 * arctan(1/12943) 

[; \left( 176 \arctan \frac{1}{57} + 28 \arctan \frac{1}{239} - 48 \arctan \frac{1}{682} + 96 \arctan \frac{1}{12943}\right) ;], for you TeX the World people.

在Scheme中实现,例如:

(+ (- (+ (* 176 (atan(第57 / 1)))(* (atan (28 / 1 239))) (* 48 (atan (1 / 682))) (* 96 (12943 atan (/ 1))))

其他回答

为了完整起见,一个c++模板版本,对于一个优化的构建,它将在编译时计算PI的近似值,并将内联到单个值。

#include <iostream>

template<int I>
struct sign
{
    enum {value = (I % 2) == 0 ? 1 : -1};
};

template<int I, int J>
struct pi_calc
{
    inline static double value ()
    {
        return (pi_calc<I-1, J>::value () + pi_calc<I-1, J+1>::value ()) / 2.0;
    }
};

template<int J>
struct pi_calc<0, J>
{
    inline static double value ()
    {
        return (sign<J>::value * 4.0) / (2.0 * J + 1.0) + pi_calc<0, J-1>::value ();
    }
};


template<>
struct pi_calc<0, 0>
{
    inline static double value ()
    {
        return 4.0;
    }
};

template<int I>
struct pi
{
    inline static double value ()
    {
        return pi_calc<I, I>::value ();
    }
};

int main ()
{
    std::cout.precision (12);

    const double pi_value = pi<10>::value ();

    std::cout << "pi ~ " << pi_value << std::endl;

    return 0;
}

注意,对于I > 10,优化构建可能会很慢,对于非优化运行也是如此。对于12次迭代,我相信大约有80k次调用value()(在没有内存的情况下)。

使用machine -like公式

176 * arctan (1/57) + 28 * arctan (1/239) - 48 * arctan (1/682) + 96 * arctan(1/12943) 

[; \left( 176 \arctan \frac{1}{57} + 28 \arctan \frac{1}{239} - 48 \arctan \frac{1}{682} + 96 \arctan \frac{1}{12943}\right) ;], for you TeX the World people.

在Scheme中实现,例如:

(+ (- (+ (* 176 (atan(第57 / 1)))(* (atan (28 / 1 239))) (* 48 (atan (1 / 682))) (* 96 (12943 atan (/ 1))))

Chudnovsky算法非常快如果你不介意做一个平方根和几个逆运算的话。它在2次迭代中收敛到两倍精度。

/*
    Chudnovsky algorithm for computing PI
*/

#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
using namespace std;

double calc_PI(int K=2) {

    static const int A = 545140134;
    static const int B = 13591409;
    static const int D = 640320;

    const double ID3 = 1./ (double(D)*double(D)*double(D));

    double sum = 0.;
    double b   = sqrt(ID3);
    long long int p = 1;
    long long int a = B;

    sum += double(p) * double(a)* b;

    // 2 iterations enough for double convergence
    for (int k=1; k<K; ++k) {
        // A*k + B
        a += A;
        // update denominator
        b *= ID3;
        // p = (-1)^k 6k! / 3k! k!^3
        p *= (6*k)*(6*k-1)*(6*k-2)*(6*k-3)*(6*k-4)*(6*k-5);
        p /= (3*k)*(3*k-1)*(3*k-2) * k*k*k;
        p = -p;

        sum += double(p) * double(a)* b;
    }

    return 1./(12*sum);
}

int main() {

    cout.precision(16);
    cout.setf(ios::fixed);

    for (int k=1; k<=5; ++k) cout << "k = " << k << "   PI = " << calc_PI(k) << endl;

    return 0;
}

结果:

k = 1   PI = 3.1415926535897341
k = 2   PI = 3.1415926535897931
k = 3   PI = 3.1415926535897931
k = 4   PI = 3.1415926535897931
k = 5   PI = 3.1415926535897931

这是一个“经典”方法,非常容易实现。 这个在python(不是最快的语言)中的实现:

from math import pi
from time import time


precision = 10**6 # higher value -> higher precision
                  # lower  value -> higher speed

t = time()

calc = 0
for k in xrange(0, precision):
    calc += ((-1)**k) / (2*k+1.)
calc *= 4. # this is just a little optimization

t = time()-t

print "Calculated: %.40f" % calc
print "Constant pi: %.40f" % pi
print "Difference: %.40f" % abs(calc-pi)
print "Time elapsed: %s" % repr(t)

你可以在这里找到更多信息。

无论如何,在python中获得精确的圆周率值的最快方法是:

from gmpy import pi
print pi(3000) # the rule is the same as 
               # the precision on the previous code

下面是gpy pi方法的源代码,我认为在这种情况下,代码没有注释那么有用:

static char doc_pi[]="\
pi(n): returns pi with n bits of precision in an mpf object\n\
";

/* This function was originally from netlib, package bmp, by
 * Richard P. Brent. Paulo Cesar Pereira de Andrade converted
 * it to C and used it in his LISP interpreter.
 *
 * Original comments:
 * 
 *   sets mp pi = 3.14159... to the available precision.
 *   uses the gauss-legendre algorithm.
 *   this method requires time o(ln(t)m(t)), so it is slower
 *   than mppi if m(t) = o(t**2), but would be faster for
 *   large t if a faster multiplication algorithm were used
 *   (see comments in mpmul).
 *   for a description of the method, see - multiple-precision
 *   zero-finding and the complexity of elementary function
 *   evaluation (by r. p. brent), in analytic computational
 *   complexity (edited by j. f. traub), academic press, 1976, 151-176.
 *   rounding options not implemented, no guard digits used.
*/
static PyObject *
Pygmpy_pi(PyObject *self, PyObject *args)
{
    PympfObject *pi;
    int precision;
    mpf_t r_i2, r_i3, r_i4;
    mpf_t ix;

    ONE_ARG("pi", "i", &precision);
    if(!(pi = Pympf_new(precision))) {
        return NULL;
    }

    mpf_set_si(pi->f, 1);

    mpf_init(ix);
    mpf_set_ui(ix, 1);

    mpf_init2(r_i2, precision);

    mpf_init2(r_i3, precision);
    mpf_set_d(r_i3, 0.25);

    mpf_init2(r_i4, precision);
    mpf_set_d(r_i4, 0.5);
    mpf_sqrt(r_i4, r_i4);

    for (;;) {
        mpf_set(r_i2, pi->f);
        mpf_add(pi->f, pi->f, r_i4);
        mpf_div_ui(pi->f, pi->f, 2);
        mpf_mul(r_i4, r_i2, r_i4);
        mpf_sub(r_i2, pi->f, r_i2);
        mpf_mul(r_i2, r_i2, r_i2);
        mpf_mul(r_i2, r_i2, ix);
        mpf_sub(r_i3, r_i3, r_i2);
        mpf_sqrt(r_i4, r_i4);
        mpf_mul_ui(ix, ix, 2);
        /* Check for convergence */
        if (!(mpf_cmp_si(r_i2, 0) && 
              mpf_get_prec(r_i2) >= (unsigned)precision)) {
            mpf_mul(pi->f, pi->f, r_i4);
            mpf_div(pi->f, pi->f, r_i3);
            break;
        }
    }

    mpf_clear(ix);
    mpf_clear(r_i2);
    mpf_clear(r_i3);
    mpf_clear(r_i4);

    return (PyObject*)pi;
}

编辑:我在剪切和粘贴和缩进方面有一些问题,你可以在这里找到源代码。

我认为圆周率的值是圆的周长和半径之比。

它可以通过常规的数学计算简单地实现