Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PI
JACK S. CALCUT
1. Introduction
The Gregory series for arctangent
x3 x5 x7 x9
arctan x = x + + , |x| 1,
3 5 7 9
combines with the identity
= arctan 1
4
to yield Leibnizs series
1 1 1 1
= 1 + + .
4 3 5 7 9
This series was a theoretical breakthrough in the calculation of decimal digits of
, although it is impractical due to its excruciatingly slow rate of convergence.
Elegant identities such as
1 1
= arctan + arctan , (Machin, 1706 [44, p. 7])
4 2 3
1 3
= 5 arctan + 2 arctan , (Euler, 1755 [51, p. 645])
4 7 79
1 1
= 4 arctan arctan , (Machin, 1706 [19, 44])
4 5 239
1 4 1
= 2 arctan + arctan + arctan and (Newton, 1676 [44, p. 2])
2 2 7 8
1 1 1
= 8 arctan arctan 4 arctan (Simson, 1723 [44, p. 10])
4 10 239 515
utilize the xn terms in Gregorys series and have been instrumental in the calculation
of decimal digits of . Upon learning of these identities, one naturally desires an
identity of the form
= r arctan x
where r and x are rational and |x| < 1 is small. Such an identity would require
only one evaluation of the arctangent function and this evaluation would converge
quickly. However, identities of this form do not exist and this fact is not men-
tioned in the literature alongside lists of such multiple angle identities. The present
note gives a very natural proof of this fact using a simple consequence of unique
factorization of Gaussian integers (Main Lemma, Section 2). Section 3 gives sev-
eral applications of the Main Lemma to arctangent identities, triangles, polygons on
geoboards and smooth curves without rational points. Section 4 concludes with his-
torical remarks and direction for further reading. Two key points for the reader to
take away are: the complex numbers can provide insight into real (R) problems and
unique factorization, when it exists, is a powerful tool. Indeed, a fallacious proof
of Fermats Last theorem given by Lame in 1847 depended crucially on unique fac-
torization in certain rings where unique factorization fails. This important failure
led to important advances in algebra (see [35, pp. 4-5, Ch. 5] or [38, pp. 169-176]).
2. Gaussian Integers
To make this note self contained, we review basic facts about the Gaussian inte-
gers. The reader familiar with the Gaussian integers may skip ahead to the Main
Lemma at the end of this section. In this paper the natural numbers N consist of
the positive integers.
The rational integers Z form the canonical and motivating example of a UFD.
We remark that the terminology rational integer is standard; one may dene the
ring of integers in any number eld K and if K = Q is the rational eld, then the
ring of integers is Z [35, 2.3]. Commonly, one calls a rational integer p prime
provided it is not equal to 0 or 1 and its only rational integer divisors are 1 and
p. This abuse of terminology (such a p is technically irreducible) is overlooked
since irreducibles and primes coincide in Z; a proof of this fact, and that Z is a
UFD, follows exactly the same steps as below for the Gaussian integers. Note that
in any integral domain, primes are irreducibles
by cancellation,
however irreducibles
need not be primes. For example, in Z 3 = a + b 3 | a, b Z we have
(1) 2 2 = 1 + 3 1 3 .
The norm
N a + b 3 = a + b 3 a b 3 = a2 + 3b2
is multiplicative,
meaning N
() = N ()N (), from which it follows
easily that
1 + 3 is irreducible in Z 3 . Equation (1) shows that 1 + 3 divides the
GAUSSIAN INTEGERS AND ARCTANGENT IDENTITIES FOR PI 3
product 22 in Z 3 . However, it is easy to check directly that 1+ 3 does not
divide 2 in Z 3 . Therefore, 1 + 3 is irreducible but not prime in Z 3 .
For more examples see [35, Section 4.4]. We mention that non-prime irreducibles
are completely characteristic of integral domains in which factorization into irre-
ducibles exists but is not unique [35, Theorem 4.13].
2i
i 1+i
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-i
-3-2i -2i
The norm shows that Z [i] contains no zero divisors, hence is an integral domain
and cancellation holds, and the units in Z [i] are 1 and i. The norm will also
play a key role in showing Z [i] is a UFD. One should note that the square shape of
the lattice Z [i] is at the heart of unique factorization. For interesting discussions
on lattice shape and the success/failure of unique factorization in certain integral
domains, see [37, pp. 229-245] and [38, pp. 169-176].
The rst step to unique factorization in Z [i] is to prove the division property: if
w = 0 and z are Gaussian integers, then there exist Gaussian integers and such
that z = w + and N () < N (w). For the proof, observe that the sublattice
wZ [i] = {w | Z [i]} Z [i]
has a square shape as shown in Figure each z Z [i] lies within d
2. Therefore
units of a point in wZ [i] where d N (w)/ 2 < N (w). Choose such that
N (z w) is minimized (such a may not be unique, but that does not matter)
and let = z w.
The next step is to obtain the greatest common divisor (gcd) via the Euclidean
algorithm, which we now review in the context of Gaussian integers. If w and z
4 J. CALCUT
1/2
N(w)
iw
2w
w
1/2
N(w)
-w d
-iw
are Gaussian integers, not both zero, then we dene gcd(w, z) to be any common
divisor of w and z of maximal norm. As w or z is nonzero, the set of common
divisors is nite (since the norm is multiplicative and nonnegative) and contains
elements of maximal norm, so gcd(w, z) exists. By taking unit multiples of one value
of gcd(w, z) we obtain four values of gcd(w, z). It seems possible that gcd(w, z)
may assume more than four values, that is two values of gcd(w, z) might not be
associates. We will see this is not the case. With gcd(w, z) dened as above, we
will prove that:
Property (i) says that gcd(w, z) assumes exactly four values. We will prove these
properties by producing gcd(w, z) via the Euclidean algorithm.
The proofs of (a) and (b) are very simple. For the backward direction in (b),
let = x + y be a Gaussian integer linear combination of and . Then
= y + (x y) is a Gaussian integer linear combination of and . The other
three parts are proved similarly.
The Euclidean algorithm starts with Gaussian integers w and z, not both zero,
and produces gcd(w, z). In case, say, w = 0, then the output is z. Otherwise, w
and z are nonzero and without loss of generality N (w) N (z). Apply the division
GAUSSIAN INTEGERS AND ARCTANGENT IDENTITIES FOR PI 5
The procedure halts when a remainder of 0 is rst obtained (last line above) and the
output is the last nonzero remainder k . The procedure halts after nitely many
steps since the norms of successive remainders form a strictly decreasing sequence
of nonnegative integers. We now show that the output is gcd(w, z) and that the
gcd satises the three properties stated above. Starting with the pair {z, w}, apply
part (a) of the Euclidean Algorithm Core Idea k + 1 times to see that the pairs
{z, w}, {w, 1 }, {1 , 2 }, ..., {k1 , k }, and {k , 0}
all have the same set of common divisors. In other words, the set of common divi-
sors of z and w is precisely the set of divisors of k . The norm is multiplicative and
nonnegative, and so the divisors of k of maximal norm are exactly the associates of
k . Thus, the values of gcd(w, z) are exactly the associates of k , and property (i)
is proved. Property (ii) is now immediate. To prove property (iii), we simply work
backwards. Clearly k is a linear combination of the pair {k , 0}. After k + 1
applications of part (b) of the Euclidean Algorithm Core Idea, we obtain k as a
Gaussian integer linear combination of the pair {z, w} as desired. Note that in the
trivial case w = 0, the values of gcd(0, z) are exactly the associates of z and the
three properties are satised. Thus gcd(w, z) has properties (i)-(iii).
If w and z are Gaussian integers and gcd(w, z) is a unit, then w and z are said
to be relatively prime. In this case, properties (i) and (iii) imply that there exist
Gaussian integers x and y such that xw + yz = 1.
With the gcd in hand, one may show that irreducibles are primes in Z [i]. Let
w Z [i] be irreducible. Then the set of divisors of w equals {1, i, w, iw}.
Therefore
Observation: If is a Gaussian integer, then gcd(w, ) = 1 or gcd(w, ) = w
according to whether divides w.
So, suppose w|zv in Z [i]. By the observation, either gcd(w, z) = 1 or gcd(w, z) = w.
The latter implies w|z, while the former implies xw + yz = 1 for some Gaussian
integers x and y; thus, xwv + yzv = v and so w|v since w|zv, as desired. Therefore,
irreducibles and primes coincide in Z [i] (recall that primes are irreducibles in any
integral domain by cancellation, as stated earlier).
Finally, we show that Z [i] is a UFD. Let w be a nonzero nonunit in Z [i]. The
existence of a factorization of w into irreducibles will follow by an informal induction
on N (w). If w is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, w = zv is a factorization into
nonunits, z and v admit factorizations into irreducibles by induction, and these
6 J. CALCUT
We now come to the main result of this section. The Gaussian integers that
lie on the four lines in Figure 3 will play a key role. These are precisely the
Gaussian integers z with arg z equal to an integer multiple of /4. Recall that if
z = a+ib = r (cos + i sin ), r > 0, then the real number is called an argument of
z, is denoted arg z, is unique up to integer multiples of 2, and equals arctan (b/a)
a+ib
r
Proof. For the backward direction, let n = 2 or n = 4. For the forward direction,
let z n = m Z where 0 = z = a + bi. The general case follows easily from the case
where z is a nonunit and is primitive, that is gcd(a, b) = 1. In this case, let w be
any Gaussian prime divisor of z. Then, w|m and so w|m = m since m is real. As
w is a Gaussian prime that divides m = z n , we see that w|z. Unique factorization
immediately implies the following.
Fact: If w is a Gaussian prime dividing z, and w and w are not associates,
then ww Z divides z.
As z is primitive, the fact implies that z is a product of Gaussian primes, each of
which is an associate of its conjugate. Let v = c + di be such a Gaussian prime
factor of z. As v and v are associates, we see that c = 0, d = 0, or c = d. The
rst two cases are not possible, since z is primitive. The third case implies c = 1
l
since v is prime. It follows that v is an associate of 1 + i and z = u (1 + i) for some
unit u and natural number l.
We now come to the nonexistence result on single angle arctangent identities for
stated in the introduction.
Corollary 2. Identities of the form k = n arctan x with x rational have x = 0
or x = 1. In particular, = 4 arctan 1 is the most ecient such identity for
computing using Gregorys series.
Proof. Given k/n = arctan x, apply tan and use the previous corollary.
where all variables are rational integers. It is natural to assume, without loss of
generality, that n N, gcd (k, n) = 1, gcd (m1 , . . . , mt ) = 1, the values |bj /aj | are
distinct, and that for all j: mj N, bj = 0, aj N, and gcd (aj , bj ) = 1. Note that
we allow k = 0. Even though nontrivial identities exist with l 2, it turns out that
one does not obtain any new angles k/n over the l = 1 case.
Corollary 3. If (2) holds, then k/n = j/4 for some integer j. In particular,
n = 1, 2 or 4.
8 J. CALCUT
Let z denote the product above. Then, z n is real and so arg z = k/n is a multiple
of /4 by the Main Lemma. The result follows.
The reason nontrivial multiple angle identities exist is quite simple. Let us look
at double angle identities
k b1 b2
(3) = m1 arctan + m2 arctan .
n a1 a2
Let zj = aj + ibj for j = 1, 2 and z = z1m1 z2m2 . Assuming equation (3) holds implies
that z n is real (conversely, if (z1m1 z2m2 )n is real, where zj = aj + ibj and aj = 0 for
j = 1, 2, then one obtains an identity of the form (3) for some k Z). As z n is real,
the proof of the Main Lemma shows that if w Z [i] is a prime divisor of z, then w is
as well. The dierence now, over the single angle case, is that these conjugate primes
may appear separately in z1 and z2 . An example is enlightening. Pick a prime, say
2+i. Letting z1 = 2+i, z2 = 2i and n = m1 = m2 = 1, we have z n = 5. However,
the corresponding arctangent identity is useless: 0 = arctan (1/2)+ arctan (1/2).
So, introduce a factor of 1 + i and let
z2 = (2 i) (1 + i) = 3 + i
and, correspondingly, n = 4. Now z n = 2500 and the associated identity is
1 1
= arctan + arctan .
4 2 3
It is instructive to take the arctangent identities from the introduction and produce
their associated Gaussian integer equations (factored into primes). The importance
of units and 1 + i should become apparent. Several questions arise, such as: are
there useful identities without factors of 1 + i in z1 or z2 ? A little tinkering yields
1
7 7
78125 = (2 + i) (1) [2 i]
where
7
(2 + i) = 278 29i
and correspondingly
29 1
= arctan + 7 arctan .
278 2
Thus useful identities without factors of 1 + i exist. At this point, the modern
student should be well equipped to explore multiple angle identities on their own
using a computer. The author highly advocates this personal form of discovery,
since it is benecial and fun! The reader might enjoy nding an ecient identity
and checking the literature to see if it is known. The bibliography lists much of the
literature known to the author.
The Main Lemma also has several applications to triangles. Say that an angle is
rational provided its measure is a rational multiple of (equivalently, its measure
is rational in degrees). Say that a side of a triangle is rational provided its length
is rational.
GAUSSIAN INTEGERS AND ARCTANGENT IDENTITIES FOR PI 9
Corollary 4. A right triangle with rational acute angles and rational legs is a
45 45 90 triangle.
Proof. Suppose triangle
ABC has a right angle at C, rational legs a and b opposite
the angles at A and B respectively, and the angle at B is a rational multiple of
. Then tan = b/a is rational and equals +1 by Corollary 1 since side lengths are
c
b
B a C
Recall that a geoboard is a at board containing pegs in a square lattice shape (see
Figure 4). Rubber bands are placed around collections of pegs to form polygons,
angles and so forth. Common questions include whether one can build an equilateral
triangle, regular polygons in general and certain angles on a geoboard. One has to
10 J. CALCUT
be a little careful here as shown on the right in Figure 4. Each straight segment
S of rubber band stretches between two pegs P1 and P2 ; if S is not parallel to the
segment connecting the centers of P1 and P2 , then the angles and polygons one can
build depends on the diameter of the pegs. To make the questions precise, one can
make this parallel assumption, or idealize and make the pegs into points. We adopt
the latter approach. Dene a lattice angle to be an angle formed by rays and
vw
v z Z
w -v w'
0 0 W
z'
w'
that are Gaussian integers. A polygon is simple provided only consecutive edges
intersect and only at their single common vertex. A polygon is equilateral provided
each of its edges has the same length. A pair of consecutive edges intersecting at
pj denes a vertex angle whose measure j we take to lie in (0, ). A polygon is
equiangular provided each vertex angle has the same measure and, moreover, these
angles all turn the same way, either all clockwise or all counterclockwise, as one
traverses the polygon along consecutive edges. A polygon is regular provided it is
equilateral and equiangular. A regular star is a regular polygon that is not simple,
as in Figure 6.
p3 p8
p6 p5
p1 p2
p4 p7
Claim. A regular polygon, not necessarily simple or lattice, has rational vertex
angles.
Proof. Let P be a regular polygon in C with n vertices p1 , p2 , . . . , pn . Translate
and rotate so that p1 = 0 and p2 = r > 0. Let 0 < < denote the measure of
p4
i 2
re
rei p3
p1 r p2
z
w w
4. Concluding Remarks
The Gregory series for arctan x appears to have been discovered by the Indian
mathematician and astronomer Madhava in the 14th century [16]. It was rediscov-
ered by Gregory in 1671 and by Leibniz in 1674 [48, p. 527]. Convergence of the
series for |x| 1 is straightforward, but one must employ Abels theorem [29] to
conclude agreement with arctan x at the endpoints x = 1.
There exist other (non-Taylor) series for arctan x, notably Eulers [51] and Castel-
lanos series [10, p. 85] (see also [34, p. 77]). As with Gregorys series, they too
benet convergence-wise from arguments of small absolute value.
In the 1800s, the number theory of the (later named) Gaussian integers revolu-
tionized the search for these identities. In 1894, Dmitry A. Grave [15] published a
problem requesting all rational integer solutions to
1 1
(4) = m arctan + n arctan .
4 p q
Stormer took up Graves problem, which had already been posed by Euler [40, p.
3],[41, p. 160]. Stormer completely solved the a priori more general
1 1
(5) k = m arctan + n arctan
4 x y
over the rational integers [39, 40, 41]. Assuming that k, m, n 0, x = y, x = 1,
y = 1, and gcd(m, n) = 1, equation (5) has four solutions, namely
1 1
(6) = arctan + arctan , (Machin, 1706 [44, p. 7])
4 2 3
1 1
(7) = 2 arctan + arctan , (Machin, 1706 [44, p. 7])
4 2 7
1 1
(8) = 2 arctan + arctan and (Machin, 1706 [44, p. 7])
4 3 7
1 1
(9) = 4 arctan + arctan . (Machin, 1706 [19, 44])
4 5 239
Commonly, (6)-(8) are erroneously attributed to L. Euler in 1737, J. Hermann in
1706, and C. Hutton in 1776 respectively (see [5, p. 345], [21, p. 662], [51, p.
645] and [10, pp. 92,94]). However, John Machin had already discovered (6)-(9)
in 1706 [44, 43]. Moreover, Robert Simson in 1723 had already discovered the last
identity in Section 1, which is commonly attributed to Klingenstierna in 1730 [44,
p. 10]. Indeed, Ian Tweddles overlooked historical gem [44] vindicates the logical
14 J. CALCUT
mind as it is unfathomable that (9) was discovered 31 years prior to (6). Newtons
earlier 1676 identity is considerably inferior to all of Machins formulas and was
communicated without proof [44, p. 2]. Thus, we are led to believe that Newton
was unaware of formulas (6)-(9) in 1676. Still, it would be surprising if (6) was not
known prior to 1706, although the author knows no reference.
Stormer remarked that after completing his 1894 work he found that Gauss had
already observed the connection between complex integers and the arc-tangents
[40, p. 11]. Gauss work is described in Scherings Comments section concluding
Gauss second volume of Werke [14, pp. 496-502]. Gauss used extensive tables and
factorizations of Gaussian integers to obtain identities such as
1 1 1
= 12 arctan + 8 arctan 5 arctan (Gauss, 1863 [14, p. 501])
4 18 57 239
which is the best three term identity of the form (2) with b1 = b2 = b3 = 1 [12].
Stormers work was more systematic and thorough than Gauss. In fact, Schering
[14, pp. 499-500] states that, The developments coming from this which can be
found in the written notes are not very expansive and what follows are the ones
that went the farthest. For further reading on multiple term arctangent identities
see [49, 50, 21, 11, 12].
Another approach to Corollary 1 is to show that the only rational roots of the
rational functions tan (k arctan x), k N, are x = 0 and x = 1. These rational
functions are the tangent analogues of the Chebyshev polynomials of the rst kind
for cosine. They were known to John Bernoulli as early as 1712 [36, pp. 193-195]
and appear in Eulers 1748 work [13, 249] (see also [44, p. 8]). The author in-
dependently discovered these rational functions and proved Corollaries 1 and 2 as
an undergraduate after an unsuccessful computer search for a useful single term
identity [8]. Several other mathematicians have used these rational functions to
prove Corollary 1, notably Underwood [45, 46, 47] (see also Richmond [28]), Olm-
sted [26] which is terse but correct, and Carlitz and Thomas [9]. The existence of
GAUSSIAN INTEGERS AND ARCTANGENT IDENTITIES FOR PI 15
The 20th century brought the electronic computer, the calculation of to 100,000
decimals by Shanks and Wrench on July 29, 1961 [34], and, in an interesting twist,
the calculation of identities themselves using the computer by Wethereld and
Chien-Lih beginning in the 1990s [49, 11, 12]. The calculation of ourished in
other directions as well [7, 5, 1, 6]. Nevertheless, the utility of arctangent identities
remains, as shown by Kanadas record holding calculation of to 1.24 trillion dec-
imals in December 2002 using rational arctangent identities [6].
Questions concerning polygons on geoboards and more general lattices have been
well studied. These problems are particularly accessible to young students and ad-
mit a variety of elementary solutions. For the nonexistence of an equilateral triangle
on a geoboard see [22], [18, pp. 4,58], [27], [2, pp. 119-120], [33, p. 761] and [4,
pp. 250-251]. We cannot resist presenting another solution (compare the proof
of Corollary 6): suppose v, w, z Z [i] are the vertices of an equilateral triangle;
translation by v shows we may assumev = 0; multiplication by w shows we may
further assume w Z+ ; but then (w/2) 3 = Imz Z, a contradiction.
For regular polygons on a geoboard and higher dimensional lattices see [31, pp.
49-50], [30], [20], [32], [4], [23] and [25]. Note that, contrary to the bottom of [25, p.
50], any proof for the integral lattice immediately implies the result for rational co-
ordinates (see the paragraph following Corollary 7 above). Scherrers 1946 innite
descent proof that no simple regular polygon exists on a lattice except the square
is short and ingenious [30] (or see [18, pp. 4,58], [33, pp. 761-762] or [4, p. 251]).
References
[1] David Bailey, Peter Borwein and Simon Ploue, On the rapid computation of various poly-
logarithmic constants, Math. Comp. 66, no. 218 (1997), 903913.
[2] Derek G. Ball, The Constructibility of Regular and Equilateral Polygons on a Square Pin-
board, Math. Gaz. 57, no. 400 (1973), 119122.
[3] Petr Beckmann, A History of , St. Martins Press, New York, 1971.
[4] Michael J. Beeson, Triangles with Vertices on Lattice Points, Amer. Math. Monthly 99, no.
3 (1992), 243252.
[5] Jonathan M. Borwein and Peter B. Borwein, Pi and the AGM, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1987.
[6] Jonathan M. Borwein and Mason S. Macklem, The (digital) life of Pi, Austral. Math. Soc.
Gaz. 33, no. 4 (2006), 243248.
[7] Richard P. Brent, Multiple-precision zero-finding methods and the complexity of elementary
function evaluation, Academic Press, New York, 1976.
[8] Jack S. Calcut, Single Rational Arctangent Identities for , The Pi Mu Epsilon Journal 11,
no. 1 (1999), 16.
[9] L. Carlitz and J. M. Thomas, Rational Tabulated Values of Trigonometric Functions, Amer.
Math. Monthly 69 (1962), 789793.
[10] Dario Castellanos, The Ubiquitous . I, Math. Mag. 61, no. 2 (1988), 6798.
[11] Hwang Chien-Lih, More Machin-Type Identities, Math. Gaz. 81, no. 490 (1997), 120121.
16 J. CALCUT
[12] Hwang Chien-Lih and Michael Wethereld, Lists of Machin-type (inverse integral cotan-
gent) identities for /4, website http://machination.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk, 2004
to present.
[13] L. Euler, Introductio in Analysin Infinitorum, Tomus Primus, Lausannae, M. M. Bousquet,
1748, in english Introduction to Analysis of the Infinite, Book I, translated by J. D. Blanton,
Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1988.
[14] C. F. Gauss, Werke. Band II, Gottingen, 1863.
[15] D. Grave, LIntermediaire des Mathematiciens, Tome I, (1894).
[16] Radha C. Gupta, The Madhava-Gregory series, Math. Education 7 (1973), B67B70.
[17] Radha C. Gupta, On the remainder term in the Madhava-Leibnizs series, Gan.ita Bharat
14 (1992), no. 1-4, 6871.
[18] Hugo Hadwiger and Hans Debrunner, Combinatorial Geometry in the Plane, Translated by
Victor Klee, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1964.
[19] William Jones, Synopsis Palmariorum Matheseos, London, Printed by J. Matthews for J.
Wale, 1706, pp. 243, 263, selections reprinted in A Source Book in Mathematics, D. E.
Smith, Ed., Dover Pub., Inc., New York, 1959, 346347.
[20] M. S. Klamkin and H. E. Chrestenson, Polygon Imbedded in a Lattice, Amer. Math. Monthly
70, no. 4 (1963), 447448.
[21] D. H. Lehmer, On Arccotangent Relation for , Amer. Math. Monthly 45, no. 10 (1938),
657664.
[22] Edouard Lucas, Theoreme sur la Geometrie des Quinconces, Bull. Soc. Math. France 6
(1878), 910.
[23] Hiroshi Maehara, Angles in lattice polygons, Ryukyu Math. J. 6 (1993), 919.
[24] Ivan Niven, Irrational Numbers, The Carus Mathematical Monographs, no. 11, MAA, 1956
(fourth printing 1997).
[25] Daniel J. OLoughlin, The Scarcity of Regular Polygons on the Integer Lattice, Math. Mag.
75, no. 1 (2002), 4751.
[26] J. M. H. Olmsted, Rational Values of Trigonometric Functions, Amer. Math. Monthly 52,
no. 9 (1945), 507508.
[27] R. A. Parsons and J. M. Truman, Equilateral triangles on geoboards, Math. Gaz. 54, no. 387
(1970), 5354.
[28] Herbert W. Richmond, An Elementary Note in Trigonometry, Math. Gaz. 20, no. 241 (1936),
333334.
[29] Walter Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1976,
174175.
[30] W. Scherrer, Die Einlagerung eines Regularen Vielecks in ein Gitter, Elemente der Math. 1
(1946), 9798.
[31] I. J. Schoenberg, Regular simplices and quadratic forms, J. London Math. Soc. 12, no. 45
(1937), 4855.
[32] Paul R. Scott, Equiangular Lattice Polygons and Semiregular Lattice Polyhedra, Coll. Math.
J. 18, no. 4 (1987), 300306.
[33] Paul R. Scott, The Fascination of the Elementary, Amer. Math. Monthly 94, no. 8 (1987),
759768.
[34] Daniel Shanks and John W. Wrench, Jr., Calculation of to 100,000 decimals, Math. Comp.
16 (1962), 7699.
[35] Ian Stewart and David Tall, Algebraic Number Theory and Fermats Last Theorem, Third
Edition, A K Peters, Ltd., Natick, MA, 2002.
[36] John Stillwell, Mathematics and Its History, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1989.
[37] John Stillwell, Numbers and Geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc., 1998.
[38] John Stillwell, Yearning for the Impossible: The Surprising Truths of Mathematics, A K
Peters, Ltd., Wellesley, MA, 2006.
[39] Carl Stormer, Solution complete en nombres entiers m, n, x, y, k de lequation m arctan x1 +
n arctan y1 = k 4 , Christiania Vidensk.-Selsk. Forh., no. 11 1894, 121.
[40] Carl Stormer, Sur lapplication de la theorie des nombres entiers complexes a la solution en
nombres rationnels x1 x2 xn c1 c2 cn , k de lequation: c1 arctan x1 + c2 arctan x2 + +
cn arctan xn = k/4, Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab XIX, no. 3 (1896), 395.
GAUSSIAN INTEGERS AND ARCTANGENT IDENTITIES FOR PI 17
[41] Carl Stormer, Solution complete en nombres entiers de lequation m arctan x1 + n arctan y1 =
k 4 , Bull. Soc. Math. France 27 (1899), 160170.
[42] Lin Tan, The Group of Rational points on the Unit Circle, Math. Mag. 69, no. 3 (1996),
163171.
[43] Rev. William Trail, Account of the Life and Writings of Robert Simson, M.D., London,
Printed by R. Cruttwell for G. and W. Nicol, 1812, pp. 6466, 105111.
[44] Ian Tweddle, John Machin and Robert Simson on inverse-tangent series for , Arch. Hist.
Exact Sci. 42, no. 1 (1991), 114.
[45] R. S. Underwood, On the Irrationality of Certain Trigonometric Functions, Amer. Math.
Monthly 28, no. 10 (1921), 374376.
[46] R. S. Underwood, Replies, Amer. Math. Monthly 29, no. 7 (1922), 255257.
[47] R. S. Underwood, Supplementary Note on the Irrationality of Certain Trigonometric Func-
tions, Amer. Math. Monthly 29, no. 9 (1922), 346.
[48] Heinrich Weber and Josef Wellstein, Enzyklopadie der Elementarmathematik, B.G. Teubner,
Leipzig, 1922.
[49] Michael Wethereld, The Enhancement of Machins Formula by Todds Process, Math. Gaz.
80, no. 488 (1996), 333344.
[50] J. W. Wrench, Jr., On the Derivation of Arctangent Equalitites, Amer. Math. Monthly 45,
no. 2 (1938), 108109.
[51] J. W. Wrench, Jr., The evolution of extended decimal approximations to , Math. Teacher
(December, 1960), 644650.