I am solving Project Euler problems with Python. I have seen some solvers use isPrime() functions that simply test whether x % y == 0 for all y from 2 to x ** 0.5. That is not efficient and I want to write a better isPrime() function, based on the num % 30 test. This is what I came up with:
primes = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
primality = [1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
def isPrime(num):
if not type(num) in (int, long):
raise ValueError
if num in primes:
return True
elif num < 2:
return False
elif num % 30 not in primality:
return False
else:
for prime in primes[3:]:
if num % prime == 0:
return False
seed, sqrt, tryfactor = 1, getIntSquareRoot(num), 1
while tryfactor < sqrt:
for trymod in primality:
tryfactor = seed * 30 + trymod
if num % tryfactor == 0 and not(num == tryfactor):
return False
seed += 1
return True
Problem 7 is to find the 10001st prime. So I decided to make the code append all these primes to a list which subsequent problems can refer to. I thought that given a 5-digit number num, num in primes would be a much faster operation that repeated num % tryfactor. For parameters where primes[-1] < num < (primes[-1] ** 0.2) it should still be faster to get tryfactor values from the list than repeatedly generating them through tryfactor = seed * 30 + trymod.
So I came up with the following:
def problem7():
count, seed = len(primes), 1
while True:
for modulus in primality:
num = seed * 30 + modulus
if isPrime(num):
count += 1
primes.append(num)
if count > 10000:
return num
seed += 1
def isPrimeB(num):
if not type(num) in (int, long):
raise ValueError
if num in primes:
return True
elif num < 2:
return False
elif num % 30 not in primality:
return False
else:
for prime in primes[3:]:
if num % prime == 0:
return False
seed, sqrt, tryfactor = 1, getIntSquareRoot(num), 1
while tryfactor < sqrt:
for trymod in primality:
tryfactor = seed * 30 + trymod
if num % tryfactor == 0 and not(num == tryfactor):
return False
seed += 1
return True
Of course I expect the code for problem 7 to be much slower, because generating the list of primes a few seconds. I also expect the code for later problems calling isPrime() (such as 10, 27, 35, 41 and 58) to run much faster.
However, I got a shock when the code for problems 27, 35, 41 and 58 became much slower. Could someone explain why looking up values in a list is much slower than calculating them? Or is there a mistake in my code? What else can I do to make the isPrime() function more efficient?
The reason it is slower is because the list lookup is O(n). Instead of using lists use sets:
primes = set()
primes.add(num)
The num in primes check will be now O(1).
Also forget about this "optimization": primes[3:]. It actually slows down your code, since it recreates the list (note that it won't work anyway if you switch to sets).
Finally you can implement the Sieve of Eratosthenes (although there are more sophisticated sieves) to generate primes fast.
#Freakish answered your question about why isPrimeB is slow. Let me propose a couple of alternatives to what you have written.
Here is my version of primality checking with a 2,3,5-wheel, which is the same algorithm as your isPrime function but stated rather differently:
def isPrime(n):
d, w, wheel = 2, 0, [1,2,2,4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6]
while d*d <= n:
if n%d == 0: return False
d = d + wheel[w]
w = 3 if w == 10 else w+1
return True
There are a couple of ways to compute the nth prime. One way uses a Sieve of Eratosthenes. Number theory tells us that the nth prime is always less than n(log n + log log n) with logarithms to base e, so you could sieve up to the limit and discard the excess primes. Here's the sieve:
def primes(n):
m = (n-1)//2; b = [True] * m
i, p, ps = 0, 3, [2]
while i < m:
if b[i]:
ps.append(p)
for j in range(2*i*i+6*i+3, m, p):
b[j] = False
i, p = i+1, p+2
return ps
So, to get the 10001st prime:
>>> 10000 * ( log(10000) + log(log(10000)) )
114306.67178344031
>>> (primes(114306))[10000]
104743
Another alternative generates candidate primes using a 2,3,5,7-wheel and confirms their primality by a Miller-Rabin test to the three bases 2, 7, 61, which is sufficient for primes less then 2^32 (actually, a little bit bigger):
def genPrimes(): # valid to 2^32
def isPrime(n):
def isSpsp(n, a):
d, s = n-1, 0
while d%2 == 0:
d /= 2; s += 1
t = pow(a,d,n)
if t == 1: return True
while s > 0:
if t == n-1: return True
t = (t*t) % n; s -= 1
return False
for p in [2, 7, 61]:
if n % p == 0: return n == p
if not isSpsp(n, p): return False
return True
w, wheel = 0, [1,2,2,4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,\
6,6,2,6,4,2,6,4,6,8,4,2,4,2,4,8,6,4,6,\
2,4,6,2,6,6,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,10,2,10]
p = 2; yield p
while True:
p = p + wheel[w]
w = 4 if w == 51 else w + 1
if isPrime(p): yield p
Then the nth prime can be computed by the expression next(itertools.islice(genPrimes(), n, n+1)):
>>> next(itertools.islice(genPrimes(), 10000, 10001))
104743
Both methods return the 10001st prime instantly, as soon as you press the enter key.
If your interested in programming with prime numbers (or you just want to solve the prime number problems in Project Euler), you might be interested in this essay or in these entries at my blog.
I was having issues in printing a series of prime numbers from one to hundred. I can't figure our what's wrong with my code.
Here's what I wrote; it prints all the odd numbers instead of primes:
for num in range(1, 101):
for i in range(2, num):
if num % i == 0:
break
else:
print(num)
break
You need to check all numbers from 2 to n-1 (to sqrt(n) actually, but ok, let it be n).
If n is divisible by any of the numbers, it is not prime. If a number is prime, print it.
for num in range(2,101):
prime = True
for i in range(2,num):
if (num%i==0):
prime = False
if prime:
print (num)
You can write the same much shorter and more pythonic:
for num in range(2,101):
if all(num%i!=0 for i in range(2,num)):
print (num)
As I've said already, it would be better to check divisors not from 2 to n-1, but from 2 to sqrt(n):
import math
for num in range(2,101):
if all(num%i!=0 for i in range(2,int(math.sqrt(num))+1)):
print (num)
For small numbers like 101 it doesn't matter, but for 10**8 the difference will be really big.
You can improve it a little more by incrementing the range you check by 2, and thereby only checking odd numbers. Like so:
import math
print 2
for num in range(3,101,2):
if all(num%i!=0 for i in range(2,int(math.sqrt(num))+1)):
print (num)
Edited:
As in the first loop odd numbers are selected, in the second loop no
need to check with even numbers, so 'i' value can be start with 3 and
skipped by 2.
import math
print 2
for num in range(3,101,2):
if all(num%i!=0 for i in range(3,int(math.sqrt(num))+1, 2)):
print (num)
I'm a proponent of not assuming the best solution and testing it. Below are some modifications I did to create simple classes of examples by both #igor-chubin and #user448810. First off let me say it's all great information, thank you guys. But I have to acknowledge #user448810 for his clever solution, which turns out to be the fastest by far (of those I tested). So kudos to you, sir! In all examples I use a values of 1 million (1,000,000) as n.
Please feel free to try the code out.
Good luck!
Method 1 as described by Igor Chubin:
def primes_method1(n):
out = list()
for num in range(1, n+1):
prime = True
for i in range(2, num):
if (num % i == 0):
prime = False
if prime:
out.append(num)
return out
Benchmark: Over 272+ seconds
Method 2 as described by Igor Chubin:
def primes_method2(n):
out = list()
for num in range(1, n+1):
if all(num % i != 0 for i in range(2, num)):
out.append(num)
return out
Benchmark: 73.3420000076 seconds
Method 3 as described by Igor Chubin:
def primes_method3(n):
out = list()
for num in range(1, n+1):
if all(num % i != 0 for i in range(2, int(num**.5 ) + 1)):
out.append(num)
return out
Benchmark: 11.3580000401 seconds
Method 4 as described by Igor Chubin:
def primes_method4(n):
out = list()
out.append(2)
for num in range(3, n+1, 2):
if all(num % i != 0 for i in range(2, int(num**.5 ) + 1)):
out.append(num)
return out
Benchmark: 8.7009999752 seconds
Method 5 as described by user448810 (which I thought was quite clever):
def primes_method5(n):
out = list()
sieve = [True] * (n+1)
for p in range(2, n+1):
if (sieve[p]):
out.append(p)
for i in range(p, n+1, p):
sieve[i] = False
return out
Benchmark: 1.12000012398 seconds
Notes: Solution 5 listed above (as proposed by user448810) turned out to be the fastest and honestly quiet creative and clever. I love it. Thanks guys!!
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I didn't feel there was any need to import the math library for the square root of a value as the equivalent is just (n**.5). Otherwise I didn't edit much other then make the values get stored in and output array to be returned by the class. Also, it would probably be a bit more efficient to store the results to a file than verbose and could save a lot on memory if it was just one at a time but would cost a little bit more time due to disk writes. I think there is always room for improvement though. So hopefully the code makes sense guys.
2021 EDIT: I know it's been a really long time but I was going back through my Stackoverflow after linking it to my Codewars account and saw my recently accumulated points, which which was linked to this post. Something I read in the original poster caught my eye for #user448810, so I decided to do a slight modification mentioned in the original post by filtering out odd values before appending the output array. The results was much better performance for both the optimization as well as latest version of Python 3.8 with a result of 0.723 seconds (prior code) vs 0.504 seconds using 1,000,000 for n.
def primes_method5(n):
out = list()
sieve = [True] * (n+1)
for p in range(2, n+1):
if (sieve[p] and sieve[p]%2==1):
out.append(p)
for i in range(p, n+1, p):
sieve[i] = False
return out
Nearly five years later, I might know a bit more but I still just love Python, and it's kind of crazy to think it's been that long. The post honestly feels like it was made a short time ago and at the time I had only been using python about a year I think. And it still seems relevant. Crazy. Good times.
Instead of trial division, a better approach, invented by the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes over two thousand years ago, is to sieve by repeatedly casting out multiples of primes.
Begin by making a list of all numbers from 2 to the maximum desired prime n. Then repeatedly take the smallest uncrossed number and cross out all of its multiples; the numbers that remain uncrossed are prime.
For example, consider the numbers less than 30. Initially, 2 is identified as prime, then 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28 and 30 are crossed out. Next 3 is identified as prime, then 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27 and 30 are crossed out. The next prime is 5, so 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 are crossed out. And so on. The numbers that remain are prime: 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, and 29.
def primes(n):
sieve = [True] * (n+1)
for p in range(2, n+1):
if (sieve[p]):
print p
for i in range(p, n+1, p):
sieve[i] = False
An optimized version of the sieve handles 2 separately and sieves only odd numbers. Also, since all composites less than the square of the current prime are crossed out by smaller primes, the inner loop can start at p^2 instead of p and the outer loop can stop at the square root of n. I'll leave the optimized version for you to work on.
break ends the loop that it is currently in. So, you are only ever checking if it divisible by 2, giving you all odd numbers.
for num in range(2,101):
for i in range(2,num):
if (num%i==0):
break
else:
print(num)
that being said, there are much better ways to find primes in python than this.
for num in range(2,101):
if is_prime(num):
print(num)
def is_prime(n):
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1):
if n % i == 0:
return False
return True
The best way to solve the above problem would be to use the "Miller Rabin Primality Test" algorithm. It uses a probabilistic approach to find if a number is prime or not. And it is by-far the most efficient algorithm I've come across for the same.
The python implementation of the same is demonstrated below:
def miller_rabin(n, k):
# Implementation uses the Miller-Rabin Primality Test
# The optimal number of rounds for this test is 40
# See http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6325576/how-many-iterations-of-rabin-miller-should-i-use-for-cryptographic-safe-primes
# for justification
# If number is even, it's a composite number
if n == 2:
return True
if n % 2 == 0:
return False
r, s = 0, n - 1
while s % 2 == 0:
r += 1
s //= 2
for _ in xrange(k):
a = random.randrange(2, n - 1)
x = pow(a, s, n)
if x == 1 or x == n - 1:
continue
for _ in xrange(r - 1):
x = pow(x, 2, n)
if x == n - 1:
break
else:
return False
return True
Igor Chubin's answer can be improved. When testing if X is prime, the algorithm doesn't have to check every number up to the square root of X, it only has to check the prime numbers up to the sqrt(X). Thus, it can be more efficient if it refers to the list of prime numbers as it is creating it. The function below outputs a list of all primes under b, which is convenient as a list for several reasons (e.g. when you want to know the number of primes < b). By only checking the primes, it saves time at higher numbers (compare at around 10,000; the difference is stark).
from math import sqrt
def lp(b)
primes = [2]
for c in range(3,b):
e = round(sqrt(c)) + 1
for d in primes:
if d <= e and c%d == 0:
break
else:
primes.extend([c])
return primes
My way of listing primes to an entry number without too much hassle is using the property that you can get any number that is not a prime with the summation of primes.
Therefore, if you divide the entry number with all primes below it, and it is not evenly divisible by any of them, you know that you have a prime.
Of course there are still faster ways of getting the primes, but this one already performs quite well, especially because you are not dividing the entry number by any number, but quite only the primes all the way to that number.
With this code I managed on my computer to list all primes up to 100 000 in less than 4 seconds.
import time as t
start = t.clock()
primes = [2,3,5,7]
for num in xrange(3,100000,2):
if all(num%x != 0 for x in primes):
primes.append(num)
print primes
print t.clock() - start
print sum(primes)
A Python Program function module that returns the 1'st N prime numbers:
def get_primes(count):
"""
Return the 1st count prime integers.
"""
result = []
x=2
while len(result) in range(count):
i=2
flag=0
for i in range(2,x):
if x%i == 0:
flag+=1
break
i=i+1
if flag == 0:
result.append(x)
x+=1
pass
return result
A simpler and more efficient way of solving this is storing all prime numbers found previously and checking if the next number is a multiple of any of the smaller primes.
n = 1000
primes = [2]
for i in range(3, n, 2):
if not any(i % prime == 0 for prime in primes):
primes.append(i)
print(primes)
Note that any is a short circuit function, in other words, it will break the loop as soon as a truthy value is found.
we can make a list of prime numbers using sympy library
import sympy
lower=int(input("lower value:")) #let it be 30
upper=int(input("upper value:")) #let it be 60
l=list(sympy.primerange(lower,upper+1)) #[31,37,41,43,47,53,59]
print(l)
Here's a simple and intuitive version of checking whether it's a prime in a RECURSIVE function! :) (I did it as a homework assignment for an MIT class)
In python it runs very fast until 1900. IF you try more than 1900, you'll get an interesting error :) (Would u like to check how many numbers your computer can manage?)
def is_prime(n, div=2):
if div> n/2.0: return True
if n% div == 0:
return False
else:
div+=1
return is_prime(n,div)
#The program:
until = 1000
for i in range(until):
if is_prime(i):
print i
Of course... if you like recursive functions, this small code can be upgraded with a dictionary to seriously increase its performance, and avoid that funny error.
Here's a simple Level 1 upgrade with a MEMORY integration:
import datetime
def is_prime(n, div=2):
global primelist
if div> n/2.0: return True
if div < primelist[0]:
div = primelist[0]
for x in primelist:
if x ==0 or x==1: continue
if n % x == 0:
return False
if n% div == 0:
return False
else:
div+=1
return is_prime(n,div)
now = datetime.datetime.now()
print 'time and date:',now
until = 100000
primelist=[]
for i in range(until):
if is_prime(i):
primelist.insert(0,i)
print "There are", len(primelist),"prime numbers, until", until
print primelist[0:100], "..."
finish = datetime.datetime.now()
print "It took your computer", finish - now , " to calculate it"
Here are the resuls, where I printed the last 100 prime numbers found.
time and date: 2013-10-15 13:32:11.674448
There are 9594 prime numbers, until 100000
[99991, 99989, 99971, 99961, 99929, 99923, 99907, 99901, 99881, 99877, 99871, 99859, 99839, 99833, 99829, 99823, 99817, 99809, 99793, 99787, 99767, 99761, 99733, 99721, 99719, 99713, 99709, 99707, 99689, 99679, 99667, 99661, 99643, 99623, 99611, 99607, 99581, 99577, 99571, 99563, 99559, 99551, 99529, 99527, 99523, 99497, 99487, 99469, 99439, 99431, 99409, 99401, 99397, 99391, 99377, 99371, 99367, 99349, 99347, 99317, 99289, 99277, 99259, 99257, 99251, 99241, 99233, 99223, 99191, 99181, 99173, 99149, 99139, 99137, 99133, 99131, 99119, 99109, 99103, 99089, 99083, 99079, 99053, 99041, 99023, 99017, 99013, 98999, 98993, 98981, 98963, 98953, 98947, 98939, 98929, 98927, 98911, 98909, 98899, 98897] ...
It took your computer 0:00:40.871083 to calculate it
So It took 40 seconds for my i7 laptop to calculate it. :)
# computes first n prime numbers
def primes(n=1):
from math import sqrt
count = 1
plist = [2]
c = 3
if n <= 0 :
return "Error : integer n not >= 0"
while (count <= n - 1): # n - 1 since 2 is already in plist
pivot = int(sqrt(c))
for i in plist:
if i > pivot : # check for primae factors 'till sqrt c
count+= 1
plist.append(c)
break
elif c % i == 0 :
break # not prime, no need to iterate anymore
else :
continue
c += 2 # skipping even numbers
return plist
You are terminating the loop too early. After you have tested all possibilities in the body of the for loop, and not breaking, then the number is prime. As one is not prime you have to start at 2:
for num in xrange(2, 101):
for i in range(2,num):
if not num % i:
break
else:
print num
In a faster solution you only try to divide by primes that are smaller or equal to the root of the number you are testing. This can be achieved by remembering all primes you have already found. Additionally, you only have to test odd numbers (except 2). You can put the resulting algorithm into a generator so you can use it for storing primes in a container or simply printing them out:
def primes(limit):
if limit > 1:
primes_found = [(2, 4)]
yield 2
for n in xrange(3, limit + 1, 2):
for p, ps in primes_found:
if ps > n:
primes_found.append((n, n * n))
yield n
break
else:
if not n % p:
break
for i in primes(101):
print i
As you can see there is no need to calculate the square root, it is faster to store the square for each prime number and compare each divisor with this number.
How about this? Reading all the suggestions I used this:
prime=[2]+[num for num in xrange(3,m+1,2) if all(num%i!=0 for i in range(2,int(math.sqrt(num))+1))]
Prime numbers up to 1000000
root#nfs:/pywork# time python prime.py
78498
real 0m6.600s
user 0m6.532s
sys 0m0.036s
Adding to the accepted answer, further optimization can be achieved by using a list to store primes and printing them after generation.
import math
Primes_Upto = 101
Primes = [2]
for num in range(3,Primes_Upto,2):
if all(num%i!=0 for i in Primes):
Primes.append(num)
for i in Primes:
print i
Here is the simplest logic for beginners to get prime numbers:
p=[]
for n in range(2,50):
for k in range(2,50):
if n%k ==0 and n !=k:
break
else:
for t in p:
if n%t ==0:
break
else:
p.append(n)
print p
n = int(input())
is_prime = lambda n: all( n%i != 0 for i in range(2, int(n**.5)+1) )
def Prime_series(n):
for i in range(2,n):
if is_prime(i) == True:
print(i,end = " ")
else:
pass
Prime_series(n)
Here is a simplified answer using lambda function.
def function(number):
for j in range(2, number+1):
if all(j % i != 0 for i in range(2, j)):
print(j)
function(13)
for i in range(1, 100):
for j in range(2, i):
if i % j == 0:
break
else:
print(i)
Print n prime numbers using python:
num = input('get the value:')
for i in range(2,num+1):
count = 0
for j in range(2,i):
if i%j != 0:
count += 1
if count == i-2:
print i,
def prime_number(a):
yes=[]
for i in range (2,100):
if (i==2 or i==3 or i==5 or i==7) or (i%2!=0 and i%3!=0 and i%5!=0 and i%7!=0 and i%(i**(float(0.5)))!=0):
yes=yes+[i]
print (yes)
min=int(input("min:"))
max=int(input("max:"))
for num in range(min,max):
for x in range(2,num):
if(num%x==0 and num!=1):
break
else:
print(num,"is prime")
break
This is a sample program I wrote to check if a number is prime or not.
def is_prime(x):
y=0
if x<=1:
return False
elif x == 2:
return True
elif x%2==0:
return False
else:
root = int(x**.5)+2
for i in xrange (2,root):
if x%i==0:
return False
y=1
if y==0:
return True
n = int(raw_input('Enter the integer range to find prime no :'))
p = 2
while p<n:
i = p
cnt = 0
while i>1:
if p%i == 0:
cnt+=1
i-=1
if cnt == 1:
print "%s is Prime Number"%p
else:
print "%s is Not Prime Number"%p
p+=1
Using filter function.
l=range(1,101)
for i in range(2,10): # for i in range(x,y), here y should be around or <= sqrt(101)
l = filter(lambda x: x==i or x%i, l)
print l
for num in range(1,101):
prime = True
for i in range(2,num/2):
if (num%i==0):
prime = False
if prime:
print num
f=0
sum=0
for i in range(1,101):
for j in range(1,i+1):
if(i%j==0):
f=f+1
if(f==2):
sum=sum+i
print i
f=0
print sum
The fastest & best implementation of omitting primes:
def PrimeRanges2(a, b):
arr = range(a, b+1)
up = int(math.sqrt(b)) + 1
for d in range(2, up):
arr = omit_multi(arr, d)
Here is a different approach that trades space for faster search time. This may be fastest so.
import math
def primes(n):
if n < 2:
return []
numbers = [0]*(n+1)
primes = [2]
# Mark all odd numbers as maybe prime, leave evens marked composite.
for i in xrange(3, n+1, 2):
numbers[i] = 1
sqn = int(math.sqrt(n))
# Starting with 3, look at each odd number.
for i in xrange(3, len(numbers), 2):
# Skip if composite.
if numbers[i] == 0:
continue
# Number is prime. Would have been marked as composite if there were
# any smaller prime factors already examined.
primes.append(i)
if i > sqn:
# All remaining odd numbers not marked composite must be prime.
primes.extend([i for i in xrange(i+2, len(numbers), 2)
if numbers[i]])
break
# Mark all multiples of the prime as composite. Check odd multiples.
for r in xrange(i*i, len(numbers), i*2):
numbers[r] = 0
return primes
n = 1000000
p = primes(n)
print "Found", len(p), "primes <=", n
Adding my own version, just to show some itertools tricks v2.7:
import itertools
def Primes():
primes = []
a = 2
while True:
if all(itertools.imap(lambda p : a % p, primes)):
yield a
primes.append(a)
a += 1
# Print the first 100 primes
for _, p in itertools.izip(xrange(100), Primes()):
print p
I came across this (really) simple program a while ago. It just outputs the first x primes. I'm embarrassed to ask, is there any way to make it more "pythonic" ie condense it while making it (more) readable? Switching functions is fine; I'm only interested in readability.
Thanks
from math import sqrt
def isprime(n):
if n ==2:
return True
if n % 2 ==0 : # evens
return False
max = int(sqrt(n))+1 #only need to search up to sqrt n
i=3
while i <= max: # range starts with 3 and for odd i
if n % i == 0:
return False
i+=2
return True
reqprimes = int(input('how many primes: '))
primessofar = 0
currentnumber = 2
while primessofar < reqprimes:
result = isprime(currentnumber)
if result:
primessofar+=1
print currentnumber
#print '\n'
currentnumber += 1
Your algorithm itself may be implemented pythonically, but it's often useful to re-write algorithms in a functional way - You might end up with a completely different but more readable solution at all (which is even more pythonic).
def primes(upper):
n = 2; found = []
while n < upper:
# If a number is not divisble through all preceding primes, it's prime
if all(n % div != 0 for div in found):
yield n
found.append( n )
n += 1
Usage:
for pr in primes(1000):
print pr
Or, with Alasdair's comment taken into account, a more efficient version:
from math import sqrt
from itertools import takewhile
def primes(upper):
n = 2; foundPrimes = []
while n < upper:
sqrtN = int(sqrt(n))
# If a number n is not divisble through all preceding primes up to sqrt(n), it's prime
if all(n % div != 0 for div in takewhile(lambda div: div <= sqrtN, foundPrimes)):
yield n
foundPrimes.append(n)
n += 1
The given code is not very efficient. Alternative solution (just as inefficient):†
>>> from math import sqrt
>>> def is_prime(n):
... return all(n % d for d in range(2, int(sqrt(n)) + 1))
...
>>> def primes_up_to(n):
... return filter(is_prime, range(2, n))
...
>>> list(primes_up_to(20))
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19]
This code uses all, range, int, math.sqrt, filter and list. It is not completely identical to your code, as it prints primes up to a certain number, not exactly n primes. For that, you can do:
>>> from itertools import count, islice
>>> def n_primes(n):
... return islice(filter(is_prime, count(2)), n)
...
>>> list(n_primes(10))
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29]
That introduces another two functions, namely itertools.count and itertools.islice. (That last piece of code works only in Python 3.x; in Python 2.x, use itertools.ifilter instead of filter.)
†: A more efficient method is to use the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
A few minor things from the style guide.
Uses four spaces, not two. (Personally I prefer tabs, but that's not the Pythonic way.)
Fewer blank lines.
Consistent whitespace: n ==2: => n == 2:
Use underscores in your variables names: currentnumber => current_number
Firstly, you should not assign max to a variable as it is an inbuilt function used to find the maximum value from an iterable. Also, that entire section of code can instead be written as
for i in xrange(3, int(sqrt(n))+1, 2):
if n%i==0: return False
Also, instead of defining a new variable result and putting the value returned by isprime into it, you can just directly do
if isprime(currentnumber):
I recently found Project Euler solutions in functional python and it has some really nice examples of working with primes like this. Number 7 is pretty close to your problem:
def isprime(n):
"""Return True if n is a prime number"""
if n < 3:
return (n == 2)
elif n % 2 == 0:
return False
elif any(((n % x) == 0) for x in xrange(3, int(sqrt(n))+1, 2)):
return False
return True
def primes(start=2):
"""Generate prime numbers from 'start'"""
return ifilter(isprime, count(start))
Usually you don't use while loops for simple things like this. You rather create a range object and get the elements from there. So you could rewrite the first loop to this for example:
for i in range( 3, int( sqrt( n ) ) + 1, 2 ):
if n % i == 0:
return False
And it would be a lot better if you would cache your prime numbers and only check the previous prime numbers when checking a new number. You can save a lot time by that (and easily calculate larger prime numbers this way). Here is some code I wrote before to get all prime numbers up to n easily:
def primeNumbers ( end ):
primes = []
primes.append( 2 )
for i in range( 3, end, 2 ):
isPrime = True
for j in primes:
if i % j == 0:
isPrime = False
break
if isPrime:
primes.append( i )
return primes
print primeNumbers( 20 )
Translated from the brilliant guys at stacktrace.it (Daniele Varrazzo, specifically), this version takes advantage of a binary min-heap to solve this problem:
from heapq import heappush, heapreplace
def yield_primes():
"""Endless prime number generator."""
# Yield 2, so we don't have to handle the empty heap special case
yield 2
# Heap of (non-prime, prime factor) tuples.
todel = [ (4, 2) ]
n = 3
while True:
if todel[0][0] != n:
# This number is not on the head of the heap: prime!
yield n
heappush(todel, (n*n, n)) # add to heap
else:
# Not prime: add to heap
while todel[0][0] == n:
p = todel[0][1]
heapreplace(todel, (n+p, p))
# heapreplace pops the minimum value then pushes:
# heap size is unchanged
n += 1
This code isn't mine and I don't understand it fully (but the explaination is here :) ), so I'm marking this answer as community wiki.
You can make it more pythonic with sieve algorithm (all primes small than 100):
def primes(n):
sieved = set()
for i in range(2, n):
if not(i in sieved):
for j in range(i + i, n, i):
sieved.add(j)
return set(range(2, n)) - sieved
print primes(100)
A very small trick will turn it to your goal.