Runs of Digits in Pi

Your goal is to output the strictly increasing sequence of consecutive, identical digits of pi (π). Each term in the sequence must be one digit longer than the previous. So 3 (0th digit of pi) is the first time a run of digits occurs (length 1). The next to occur is 33 (digits 24 and 25 of pi). Of course, this sequence requires the digits of pi to be in base 10.

The ones known so far, and the first six all occur within the first 800 digits:

3
33
111
9999
99999
999999
3333333
44444444
777777777
6666666666
... (not in first 2 billion digits)


Note that the consecutive nines all occur together, in the same run, so if the next larger run you found happened to be 1000 consecutive 0s, this would fill in multiple terms of the sequence.

I have not found any more terms with my program. I know there are no more terms within the first 50000 digits or more. My program was taking too long with 500000 digits, so I gave up.

Reference Implementation

You may:

• Output the sequence forever
• Take an integer n and find the first n numbers in the sequence
• Take an integer n and find the numbers in the sequence contained in the first n digits of pi.

Make sure to specify which one your code does. The number n may be zero or one indexed.

Inspired by this mathoverflow question.

• Related - that runs of 9s caused headaches for many answers :P
– user45941
Commented Jul 13, 2016 at 21:26
• Are you allowed to start output with the empty sequence? Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 0:03
• Also, the next term of the sequence appears to be 3333333 in digits 10^-710100 through 10^-710106. The value for n = 8 does not appear in the first 5 000 000 digits. Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 0:08
• Two more terms: 44444444 at digits 10^-22931745 through 10^-22931752 and 777777777 at digits 10^-24658601 through 10^-24658609. The value for n = 10 does not appear in the first 100 000 000 digits. Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 18:02
• One more term: 6666666666 at 10^-386980412. The 11th term does not appear in the first 2 000 000 000 digits. Commented Jul 19, 2016 at 4:25

Mathematica, 85 bytes

FromDigits/@DeleteDuplicatesBy[Join@@Subsets/@Split@RealDigits[Pi,10,#][[1]],Length]&


Anonymous function. Takes n as input, and returns the elements of the sequence in the first n digits of π. Output is in the form of {0, 3, 33, 111, ...}.

Python 2, 110 bytes

n=input()
x=p=7*n|1
while~-p:x=p/2*x/p+2*10**n;p-=2
l=m=0
for c inx:
l=l*(p==c)+1;p=c
if l>m:m=l;print p*l


The maximum number of digits to check is taken as from stdin. 10,000 digits finishes in about 2s with PyPy 5.3.

Sample Usage

$echo 10000 | pypy pi-runs.py 3 33 111 9999 99999 999999  Something Useful from sys import argv from gmpy2 import mpz def pibs(a, b): if a == b: if a == 0: return (1, 1, 1123) p = a*(a*(32*a-48)+22)-3 q = a*a*a*24893568 t = 21460*a+1123 return (p, -q, p*t) m = (a+b) >> 1 p1, q1, t1 = pibs(a, m) p2, q2, t2 = pibs(m+1, b) return (p1*p2, q1*q2, q2*t1 + p1*t2) if __name__ == '__main__': from sys import argv digits = int(argv[1]) pi_terms = mpz(digits*0.16975227728583067) p, q, t = pibs(0, pi_terms) z = mpz(10)**digits pi = 3528*q*z/t l=m=0 x=0 for c in str(pi): l=l*(p==c)+1;p=c if l>m:m=l;print x,p*l x+=1  I've switched from Chudnovsky to Ramanujan 39 for this. Chudnovsky ran out of memory on my system shortly after 100 million digits, but Ramanujan made it all the way to 400 million, in only about 38 minutes. I think this is another case were slower growth rate of terms wins out in the end, at least on a system with limited resources. Sample Usage $ python pi-ramanujan39-runs.py 400000000
0 3
25 33
155 111
765 9999
766 99999
767 999999
710106 3333333
22931752 44444444
24658609 777777777
386980421 6666666666


Faster Unbounded Generators

The reference implementation given in the problem description is interesting. It uses an unbounded generator, taken directly from the paper Unbounded Spigot Algorithms for the Digits of Pi. According to the author, the implementations provided are "deliberately obscure", so I decided to make fresh implementations of all three algorithms listed by the author, without deliberate obfuscation. I've also added a fourth, based on Ramanujan #39.

try:
from gmpy2 import mpz
except:
mpz = long

def g1_ref():
# Leibniz/Euler, reference
q, r, t = mpz(1), mpz(0), mpz(1)
i, j = 1, 3
while True:
n = (q+r)/t
if n*t > 4*q+r-t:
yield n
q, r = 10*q, 10*(r-n*t)
q, r, t = q*i, (2*q+r)*j, t*j
i += 1; j += 2

def g1_md():
# Leibniz/Euler, multi-digit
q, r, t = mpz(1), mpz(0), mpz(1)
i, j = 1, 3
z = mpz(10)**10
while True:
n = (q+r)/t
if n*t > 4*q+r-t:
for d in digits(n, i>34 and 10 or 1): yield d
q, r = z*q, z*(r-n*t)
u, v, x = 1, 0, 1
for k in range(33):
u, v, x = u*i, (2*u+v)*j, x*j
i += 1; j += 2
q, r, t = q*u, q*v+r*x, t*x

def g2_md():
# Lambert, multi-digit
q, r, s, t = mpz(0), mpz(4), mpz(1), mpz(0)
i, j, k = 1, 1, 1
z = mpz(10)**49
while True:
n = (q+r)/(s+t)
if n == q/s:
for d in digits(n, i>65 and 49 or 1): yield d
q, r = z*(q-n*s), z*(r-n*t)
u, v, w, x = 1, 0, 0, 1
for l in range(64):
u, v, w, x = u*j+v, u*k, w*j+x, w*k
i += 1; j += 2; k += j
q, r, s, t = q*u+r*w, q*v+r*x, s*u+t*w, s*v+t*x

def g3_ref():
# Gosper, reference
q, r, t = mpz(1), mpz(180), mpz(60)
i = 2
while True:
u, y = i*(i*27+27)+6, (q+r)/t
yield y
q, r, t, i = 10*q*i*(2*i-1), 10*u*(q*(5*i-2)+r-y*t), t*u, i+1

def g3_md():
# Gosper, multi-digit
q, r, t = mpz(1), mpz(0), mpz(1)
i, j = 1, 60
z = mpz(10)**50
while True:
n = (q+r)/t
if n*t > 6*i*q+r-t:
for d in digits(n, i>38 and 50 or 1): yield d
q, r = z*q, z*(r-n*t)
u, v, x = 1, 0, 1
for k in range(37):
u, v, x = u*i*(2*i-1), j*(u*(5*i-2)+v), x*j
i += 1; j += 54*i
q, r, t = q*u, q*v+r*x, t*x

def g4_md():
# Ramanujan 39, multi-digit
q, r, s ,t = mpz(0), mpz(3528), mpz(1), mpz(0)
i = 1
z = mpz(10)**3511
while True:
n = (q+r)/(s+t)
if n == (22583*i*q+r)/(22583*i*s+t):
for d in digits(n, i>597 and 3511 or 1): yield d
q, r = z*(q-n*s), z*(r-n*t)
u, v, x = mpz(1), mpz(0), mpz(1)
for k in range(596):
c, d, f = i*(i*(i*32-48)+22)-3, 21460*i-20337, -i*i*i*24893568
u, v, x = u*c, (u*d+v)*f, x*f
i += 1
q, r, s, t = q*u, q*v+r*x, s*u, s*v+t*x

def digits(x, n):
o = []
for k in range(n):
x, r = divmod(x, 10)
o.append(r)
return reversed(o)


Notes

Above are 6 implementations: the two reference implementations provided by the author (denoted _ref), and four that compute terms in batches, generating multiple digits at once (_md). All implementations have been confirmed to 100,000 digits. When choosing batch sizes, I chose values that slowly lose precision over time. For example, g1_md generates 10 digits per batch, with 33 iterations. However, this will only produce ~9.93 correct digits. When precision runs out the check condition will fail, triggering an extra batch to be run. This seems to be more performant than slowly gainly extra, unneeded precision over time.

• g1 (Leibniz/Euler)
An extra variable j is kept, representing 2*i+1. The author does the same in the reference implementation. Calculating n separately is far simpler (and less obscure), because it uses the current values of q, r and t, rather than the next.
• g2 (Lambert)
The check n == q/s is admittedly quite lax. That should read n == (q*(k+2*j+4)+r)/(s*(k+2*j+4)+t), where j is 2*i-1 and k is i*i. At higher iterations, the r and t terms become increasingly less significant. As is, it's good for the first 100,000 digits, so it's probably good for all. The author provides no reference implementation.
• g3 (Gosper)
The author conjectures that it is unnecessary to check that n will not change in subsequent iterations, and that it only serves to slow the algorithm. While probably true, the generator is holding onto ~13% more correct digits than it has currently generated, which seems somewhat wasteful. I've added the check back in, and wait until 50 digits are correct, generating them all at once, with a noticable gain in performance.
• g4 (Ramanujan 39)
Calculated as

Unfortunately, s doesn't zero out, due to the initial (3528 ÷) composition, but it's still significantly faster than g3. Convergence is ~5.89 digits per term, 3511 digits are generated at a time. If that's a bit much, generating 271 digits per 46 iterations is also a decent choice.

Timings

Taken on my system, for purposes of comparison only. Times are listed in seconds. If a timing took longer than 10 minutes, I didn't run any further tests.

            |  g1_ref |  g1_md  |  g2_md  |  g3_ref |  g3_md  |  g4_md
------------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------
10,000  |  1.645  |  0.229  |  0.093  |  0.312  |  0.062  |  0.062
20,000  |  6.859  |  0.937  |  0.234  |  1.140  |  0.250  |  0.109
50,000  |  55.62  |  5.546  |  1.437  |  9.703  |  1.468  |  0.234
100,000  |  247.9  |  24.42  |  5.812  |  39.32  |  5.765  |  0.593
200,000  |  2,158  |  158.7  |  25.73  |  174.5  |  33.62  |  2.156
500,000  |    -    |  1,270  |  215.5  |  3,173  |  874.8  |  13.51
1,000,000  |    -    |    -    |  1,019  |    -    |    -    |  58.02


It's interesting that g2 eventually overtakes g3, despite a slower rate of convergence. I suspect this is because the operands grow at a significantly slower rate, winning out in the long run. The fastest implmentation g4_md is approximately 235x faster than the g3_ref implmentation on 500,000 digits. That said, there's still a significant overhead to streaming digits in this way. Calculating all digits directly using Ramanujan 39 (python source) is approximately 10x as fast.

Why not Chudnovsky?

The Chudnovsky algorithm requires a full precision square root, which I'm honestly not sure how to work in - assuming it could be at all. Ramanujan 39 is somewhat special in this regard. However, the method does seem like it might be conducive to Machin-like formulas, such as those used by y-cruncher, so that might be an avenue worth exploring.

• TIL Ideone supports Pypy. So is the 2nd program built for speed? Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 13:40
• @mbomb007 "So is the 2nd program built for speed?" It is. I think the challenge would have been equally as interesting as a fastest-code. Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 13:48
• Same. I considered both. Idk how people feel about re-posting under a different tag. It might be more useful if it's to be added to the OEIS (which doesn't contain this sequence) Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 14:05

import Data.List
g(q,r,t,k,n,l)|4*q+r-t<n*t=n:g(10*q,10*(r-n*t),t,k,div(10*(3*q+r))t-10*n,l)|0<1=g(q*k,(2*q+r)*l,t*l,k+1,div(q*(7*k+2)+r*l)(t*l),l+2)
p=nubBy(\x y->length x==length y).concatMap inits.group\$g(1,0,1,1,3,3)


This uses the Unbounded Spigot Algorithms for the Digits of Pi by Jeremy Gibbons, 2004. The result is p. Technically, it should support infinite output sequences, but that may take a while (and is bounded by your memory).

Python 2, 298 bytes

Note, the code for generating pi is taken from the OP's implementation.

def p():
q,r,t,j=1,180,60,2
while 1:
u,y=3*(3*j+1)*(3*j+2),(q*(27*j-12)+5*r)//(5*t)
yield y
q,r,t,j=10*q*j*(2*j-1),10*u*(q*(5*j-2)+r-y*t),t*u,j+1
p=p()
c=r=0
d=[0]
while 1:
t=p.next()
if t==d[len(d)-1]:d.append(t)
else:d=[t]
if len(d)>r:r=len(d);print"".join([int(x)for x in d])
c+=1


My first attempt at golfing in Python. Outputs the sequence forever.

• Could you please explain how you calculate π here? You, of course, calculate pi, right? Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 1:46
• Can't test right now, but aren't you calculating π forever there? Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 2:30
• @TuukkaX doesn't appear so as it has a yield which stops it, but I'm not very good at python Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 6:29
• Downgoat is correct - it uses a generator function.
– user45941
Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 6:42
• I wrote all the code, I didn't look at your implementation except the p part Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 14:30

Python 3.5, 278 263 bytes:

import decimal,re;decimal.getcontext().prec=int(input());D=decimal.Decimal;a=p=1;b,t=1/D(2).sqrt(),1/D(4)
for i in[1]*50:z=(a+b)/2;b=(a*b).sqrt();t-=p*(a-z)**2;a=z;p*=2;pi=(z*2)**2/(4*t);i=0;C=lambda r:re.search(r'(\d)\1{%s}'%r,str(pi))
while C(i):print(C(i));i+=1


This takes in n as an input for the first n digits of π and then outputs the members of the sequence in those first n digits. Now, this uses Python's built in decimal module to go beyond Python's floating-point limitations, and then sets the precision, or epsilon, to however much the user inputs. Then, to calculate π, this goes through 50 iterations using the efficient Gausse-Legendre algorithm, since the algorithm apparently doubles the number of correct digits each time, and therefore, in 50 iterations, we can get up to 2^50 or 1,125,899,906,842,624 correct digits. Finally, after the calculations are done, it uses a regular expression with string formatting in a while loop to find and print re match objects (which I hope is okay) for all continuous, recurring digits 1 digit longer than in the previous iteration through the loop.

I was able to use this algorithm to successfully and accurately calculate π up to 10,000,000 (ten million) digits, which took about 4 hours and 12 minutes to complete. The following was the final output:

<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(0, 1), match='3'>
<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(25, 27), match='33'>
<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(154, 157), match='111'>
<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(763, 767), match='9999'>
<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(763, 768), match='99999'>
<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(763, 769), match='999999'>
<_sre.SRE_Match object; span=(710101, 710108), match='3333333'>


So, I can confidently say that the 8th number in the sequence does not even occur within the first 10 million digits! π is one random number...