双打:

4.0 * (4.0 * Math.Atan(0.2) - Math.Atan(1.0 / 239.0))

这将精确到小数点后14位，足以填充双精度(不准确可能是因为弧切线中的其余小数被截断了)。

还有Seth，是3.141592653589793238463，不是64。

如果您愿意使用近似值，355 / 113适用于6个十进制数字，并且具有用于整数表达式的附加优势。如今，这已经不那么重要了，因为“浮点数学协处理器”已经没有任何意义了，但它曾经非常重要。

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。

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)。

在过去，由于字的大小很小，浮点运算很慢或者根本不存在，我们常常这样做:

/* Return approximation of n * PI; n is integer */
#define pi_times(n) (((n) * 22) / 7)

对于不需要很高精度的应用程序(例如电子游戏)，这是非常快速和准确的。

这个版本(在Delphi中)没有什么特别的，但它至少比Nick Hodge在他的博客上发布的版本快:)。在我的机器上，执行十亿次迭代大约需要16秒，得到的值为3.1415926525879(准确的部分用粗体显示)。

program calcpi;

{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}

uses
  SysUtils;

var
  start, finish: TDateTime;

function CalculatePi(iterations: integer): double;
var
  numerator, denominator, i: integer;
  sum: double;
begin
  {
  PI may be approximated with this formula:
  4 * (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 .......)
  //}
  numerator := 1;
  denominator := 1;
  sum := 0;
  for i := 1 to iterations do begin
    sum := sum + (numerator/denominator);
    denominator := denominator + 2;
    numerator := -numerator;
  end;
  Result := 4 * sum;
end;

begin
  try
    start := Now;
    WriteLn(FloatToStr(CalculatePi(StrToInt(ParamStr(1)))));
    finish := Now;
    WriteLn('Seconds:' + FormatDateTime('hh:mm:ss.zz',finish-start));
  except
    on E:Exception do
      Writeln(E.Classname, ': ', E.Message);
  end;
end.