The number is a mathematical constant, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter,

commonly approximated as 3.14159. It has been represented by the Greek letter "" since the mid18th century, though it is also sometimes spelled out as "pi" (/pa/).
Being an irrational number, cannot be expressed exactly as a common fraction, although fractions
such as 22/7 and other rational numbers are commonly used to approximate . Consequently
its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern. The
digits appear to be randomly distributed; however, to date, no proof of this has been discovered.
Also, is a transcendental number a number that is not the root of any nonzero polynomial having rational coefficients. This transcendence of implies that it is impossible to
solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.
For thousands of years, mathematicians have attempted to extend their understanding of ,
sometimes by computing its value to a high degree of accuracy. Before the 15th century,
mathematicians such as Archimedes and Liu Hui used geometrical techniques, based on polygons,
to estimate the value of . Starting around the 15th century, new algorithms based on infinite
series revolutionized the computation of . In the 20th and 21st centuries, mathematicians
and computer scientists discovered new approaches that, when combined with increasing
computational power, extended the decimal representation of to, as of late 2013, over 12 trillion
(1013) digits.[1] Scientific applications generally require no more than 40 digits of so the primary
motivation for these computations is the human desire to break records. However, the extensive
calculations involved have been used to test supercomputers and high-precision
multiplication algorithms.
Because its definition relates to the circle, is found in many formulae
in trigonometry and geometry, especially those concerning circles, ellipses or spheres. It is also
found in formulae used in other branches of science such as cosmology, number
theory, statistics, fractals,thermodynamics, mechanics and electromagnetism. The ubiquity
of makes it one of the most widely known mathematical constants both inside and outside the
scientific community: Several books devoted to it have been published, the number is celebrated
on Pi Day and record-setting calculations of the digits of often result in news headlines. Attempts
to memorize the value of with increasing precision have led to records of over 67,000 digits.

Fundamentals
Name
The symbol used by mathematicians to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter
is the lowercase Greek letter , sometimes spelled out as pi. In English, is pronounced as
"pie" ( /pa/, pa).[2] In mathematical use, the lowercase letter (or in sans-serif font) is
distinguished from its capital counterpart , which denotes a product of a sequence.

The choice of the symbol is discussed below.

Definition
The circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times as long as its diameter. The exact ratio is called .

is commonly defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference C to its diameter d:[3]

The ratio C/d is constant, regardless of the circle's size. For example, if a circle has twice the
diameter of another circle it will also have twice the circumference, preserving the ratio C/d. This
definition of implicitly makes use of flat (Euclidean) geometry; although the notion of a circle
can be extended to any curved (non-Euclidean) geometry, these new circles will no longer
satisfy the formula

= C/d.[3] There are also other definitions of that do not immediately

involve circles at all. For example, is twice the smallest positive x for which cos(x) equals 0.[3][4]

Properties
is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be written as the ratio of two integers (fractions
such as 22/7 are commonly used to approximate ; no common fraction (ratio of whole
numbers) can be its exact value).[5] Since is irrational, it has an infinite number of digits in
its decimal representation, and it does not settle into an infinitely repeating pattern of digits.
There are several proofs that is irrational; they generally require calculus and rely on
the reductio ad absurdum technique. The degree to which can be approximated by rational
numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known; estimates have established
that the irrationality measure is larger than the measure of e or ln(2) but smaller than the
measure of Liouville numbers.[6]

Because is a transcendental number, squaring the circle is not possible in a finite number of steps using
the classical tools of compass and straightedge.

More strongly, is a transcendental number, which means that it is not the solution of any non[7][8]

constant polynomial with rational coefficients, such as

The transcendence

of has two important consequences: First, cannot be expressed using any finite combination
of rational numbers and square roots or n-th roots such as

or

Second, since no

transcendental number can be constructed with compass and straightedge, it is not possible to
"square the circle". In other words, it is impossible to construct, using compass and straightedge
alone, a square whose area is equal to the area of a given circle.[9] Squaring a circle was one of
the important geometry problems of the classical antiquity.[10]Amateur mathematicians in modern

times have sometimes attempted to square the circle and sometimes claim success despite the
fact that it is impossible.[11]
The digits of have no apparent pattern and have passed tests for statistical randomness,
including tests for normality; a number of infinite length is called normal when all possible
sequences of digits (of any given length) appear equally often.[12] The conjecture that is normal
has not been proven or disproven.[12] Since the advent of computers, a large number of digits
of have been available on which to perform statistical analysis.Yasumasa Kanada has
performed detailed statistical analyses on the decimal digits of and found them consistent with
normality; for example, the frequency of the ten digits 0 to 9 were subjected to statistical
significance tests, and no evidence of a pattern was found.[13] Despite the fact that 's digits pass
statistical tests for randomness, contains some sequences of digits that may appear nonrandom to non-mathematicians, such as theFeynman point, which is a sequence of six
consecutive 9s that begins at the 762nd decimal place of the decimal representation of .[14]

Continued fractions
The constant is represented in thismosaic outside the Mathematics Building at the Technical University of
Berlin.

Like all irrational numbers, cannot be represented as a common fraction (also known as
a simple or vulgar fraction), by the very definition of "irrational". But every irrational number,
including , can be represented by an infinite series of nested fractions, called a continued
fraction:

A001203
Truncating the continued fraction at any point generates a fraction that provides an
approximation for ; two such fractions (22/7 and 355/113) have been used historically to
approximate the constant. Each approximation generated in this way is a best rational
approximation; that is, each is closer to than any other fraction with the same or a smaller
denominator.[15] Because is known to be transcendental, it is by definition not algebraic and
so cannot be a quadratic irrational. Therefore cannot have a periodic continued fraction.
Although the simple continued fraction for (shown above) also does not exhibit any other
obvious pattern,[16] mathematicians have discovered several generalized continued
fractions that do, such as:[17]

Approximate value
Some approximations of pi include:

Integers: 3

Fractions: Approximate fractions include (in order of increasing

accuracy) 22/7 , 333/106 , 355/113 , 52163/16604 , 103993/33102 ,
and 245850922/78256779 .[15] (List is selected terms from

A063674 and

A063673.)

Decimal: The first 50 decimal digits

are 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510...[18]
A000796

Binary: The base 2 approximation to 48 digits

is 11.001001000011111101101010100010001000010110100011...

Hexadecimal: The base 16 approximation to 20 digits

is 3.243F6A8885A308D31319...[19]

Sexagesimal: A base 60 approximation to four sexagesimal digits is 3;8,29,44,1

History
See also: Chronology of computation of

Antiquity
The Great Pyramid at Giza, constructed c.25892566 BC, was built with a perimeter of
about 1760 cubits and a height of about 280 cubits; the ratio 1760/280 6.2857 is
approximately equal to 2 6.2832. Based on this ratio, some Egyptologists concluded
that the pyramid builders had knowledge of and deliberately designed the pyramid to
incorporate the proportions of a circle.[20] Others maintain that the suggested relationship
to is merely a coincidence, because there is no evidence that the pyramid builders
had any knowledge of , and because the dimensions of the pyramid are based on
other factors.[21]
The earliest written approximations of are found in Egypt and Babylon, both within 1
percent of the true value. In Babylon, a clay tablet dated 19001600 BC has a
geometrical statement that, by implication, treats as 25/8 = 3.1250.[22] In Egypt,

the Rhind Papyrus, dated around 1650 BC, but copied from a document dated to
1850 BC has a formula for the area of a circle that treats as (16/9)2 3.1605.[22]
In India around 600 BC, the Shulba Sutras (Sanskrit texts that are rich in mathematical
contents) treat as (9785/5568)2 3.088.[23] In 150 BC, or perhaps earlier, Indian
sources treat as

3.1622.[24]

Two verses in the Hebrew Bible (written between the 8th and 3rd centuries BC) describe
a ceremonial pool in the Temple of Solomon with a diameter of ten cubits and a
circumference of thirty cubits; the verses imply is about three if the pool is
circular.[25][26] Rabbi Nehemiah explained the discrepancy as being due to the thickness
of the vessel. His early work of geometry,Mishnat ha-Middot, was written around 150 AD
and takes the value of to be three and one seventh.[27] (See Approximations of )

Polygon approximation era

can be estimated by computing the perimeters of circumscribed and inscribed polygons.
The first recorded algorithm for rigorously calculating the value of was a geometrical
approach using polygons, devised around 250 BC by the Greek
mathematician Archimedes.[28] This polygonal algorithm dominated for over 1,000 years,
and as a result is sometimes referred to as "Archimedes' constant".[29] Archimedes
computed upper and lower bounds of by drawing a regular hexagon inside and
outside a circle, and successively doubling the number of sides until he reached a 96sided regular polygon. By calculating the perimeters of these polygons, he proved that
223/71 < < 22/7 (3.1408 < < 3.1429).[30] Archimedes' upper bound of 22/7 may have
led to a widespread popular belief that is equal to 22/7.[31] Around 150 AD, GreekRoman scientistPtolemy, in his Almagest, gave a value for of 3.1416, which he may
have obtained from Archimedes or from Apollonius of Perga.[32] Mathematicians using
polygonal algorithms reached 39 digits of in 1630, a record only broken in 1699 when
infinite series were used to reach 71 digits.[33]

Archimedes developed the polygonal approach to approximating .

In ancient China, values for included 3.1547 (around 1 AD),

(100 AD,

approximately 3.1623), and 142/45 (3rd century, approximately 3.1556).[34]Around 265

AD, the Wei Kingdom mathematician Liu Hui created a polygon-based iterative
algorithm and used it with a 3,072-sided polygon to obtain a value
of of 3.1416.[35][36] Liu later invented a faster method of calculating and obtained a
value of 3.14 with a 96-sided polygon, by taking advantage of the fact that the
differences in area of successive polygons form a geometric series with a factor

of 4.[35] The Chinese mathematician Zu Chongzhi, around 480 AD, calculated

that 355/113 (a fraction that goes by the name Mil in Chinese), using Liu Hui's
algorithm applied to a 12,288-sided polygon. With a correct value for its seven first
decimal digits, this value of 3.141592920... remained the most accurate approximation
of available for the next 800 years.[37]
The Indian astronomer Aryabhata used a value of 3.1416 in his ryabhaya (499
AD).[38] Fibonacci in c. 1220 computed 3.1418 using a polygonal method, independent of
Archimedes.[39] Italian author Dante apparently employed the
value

3.14142.[39]

The Persian astronomer Jamshd al-Ksh produced 16 digits in 1424 using a polygon
with 3228 sides,[40][41] which stood as the world record for about 180 years.[42] French
mathematician Franois Vite in 1579 achieved 9 digits with a polygon of
3217 sides.[42] Flemish mathematician Adriaan van Roomenarrived at 15 decimal places
in 1593.[42] In 1596, Dutch mathematician Ludolph van Ceulen reached 20 digits, a
record he later increased to 35 digits (as a result, was called the "Ludolphian number"
in Germany until the early 20th century).[43] Dutch scientist Willebrord Snellius reached
34 digits in 1621,[44] and Austrian astronomer Christoph Grienberger arrived at 38 digits
in 1630,[45] which remains the most accurate approximation manually achieved using
polygonal algorithms.[44]