# [Tutor] Re: concerning Monte Python method you suggested for pi, also PiPoem
I found

**Daniel Yoo
**
dyoo@hkn.EECS.Berkeley.EDU

*Tue, 29 Aug 2000 02:50:48 -0700 (PDT)*

On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Charles Gruschow, Jr. wrote:
>* I did a little statistics on that program.
*>* 10000 loops of 10000 "arrows" (used getPi(10000) 10000 times)
*>* It took about 4 hours.
*>* One ?--->why are all our ratios coming out to 3 or 4 digits, is it because
*>* we are dividing by 10000?
*
Exactly --- For every additional power of 10 we dedicate, we get one more
digit of un-precision. *grin* It's a very bad method if you want to get
Pi quickly. Nevertheless, it is pretty cool to get Pi out of randomness,
no?
>* This method doesn't seem too accurate or quick, does it.
*
A traditional method of getting Pi involves summing up a partial sum (the
derivation comes from trigonometic identities), and I'm sure there are
many other methods that perform far better than dart throwing. My
Calculus is rusty, but I can look it up again in my dusty textbook, if you
want.
I do remember seeing a very interesting method of getting Pi rapidly using
some sort of sequence-accelerating function. It's in the book, "Structure
and Interpretation of Computer Programs", the best CS textbook, period.
I heartily recommend it --- it's the best book on programming that I've
ever read. The language they use in the book is Scheme, which is a
wonderful medium for getting ideas across. The authors are Abelson and
Sussman.
If I have time, I'll see if that Pi-accelerator translates well to Python.