Develop Reference

Power Function Python

This function is calculates the value of a^b and returns it.My question is if m=log(b)
the best case scenario is that it does m+1 interactions
but what is the worst case? and how many times it enters the while loop?
def power(a,b):
result=1
while b>0: # b is nonzero
if b % 2 == 1:
result=result*a
a=a*a
b = b//2
return result

As #EliSadoff stated in a comment, you need an initial value of result in your function. Insert the line
result = 1
just after the def line. The code then works, and this is a standard way to implicitly use the binary representation of b to quickly get the exponentiation. (The loop invariant is that the value of result * a ** b remains constant, which shows the validity of this algorithm.)
The worst case is where your if b % 2 line is executed every time through the while loop. This will happen whenever b is one less than a power of 2, so every digit in bs binary representation is one. The while loop condition while b>0 is still checked only m+1 times, but each loop now has a little more to do.
There are several ways to speed up your code. Use while b rather than while b>0 and if b & 1 rather than if b % 2 = 1. Use result *= a rather than result = result*a and a *= a rather than a = a*a and b >>= 1 rather than b = b // 2. These are fairly minor improvements, of course. The only way to speed up the loop further is to use non-structured code, which I believe isn't possible in Python. (There is one more modification of a than is necessary but there is no good way to prevent that without a jump into a loop.) There are some variations on this code, such as an inner loop to keep modifying a and b as long as b is even, but that is not always faster.
The final code is then
def power(a, b):
"""Return a ** b, assuming b is a nonnegative integer"""
result = 1
while b:
if b & 1:
result *= a
a *= a
b >>= 1
return result
I cleaned up your code a little to better fit PEP8 (Python style standards). Note that there is no error checking in your code, especially to ensure that b is a nonnegative integer. I believe my code gets an infinite loop if b is a negative integer while yours returns a false result. So please do that error check! Also note that your code says power(0, 0) == 1 which is pretty standard for such a function but still takes some people by surprise.

Why is my integer viewed by python as a complex number?

I just started a course in Python and trying this code:
import math
c = int(input('Enter number: '))
a = 1
counter = 0
while counter != 2:
a = a + 1
b = round((c-(a**3))**(1/3.0))
if a < b and a**3 + b**3 == c:
counter = counter + 1
print(a,b)
My problem is that python cant round the 'b' since it is viewed as a complex number...
The program is supposed to find two sets of a & b that satisfie a^3+b^3=c, any feed back on my code is appreciated.

Basically, raising a negative number to a fractional power always yields a complex number. For example, sqrt(-1) (which is (-1)**(1/2)), is clearly complex.
So, if you try to raise -8 to the 1/3th power, you'll get a complex number. For example:
a = (-8)**(1/3)
print(a)
print(a**3)
Will print
(1.0000000000000002+1.7320508075688772j)
(-8+3.1086244689504383e-15j)
That gives back -8 when raised to the 3rd power, give or take some rounding.
This rounding is the real issue here. You could well say that -8 to the power 1/3 is -2, as -2 to the 3rd power is -8. However - and this is the crux - that only works if the power is actually 1/3. In a floating point number it will actually be 0.33333 (with some more threes), which is not exactly the same. Hence the exponentiation is done with complex numbers.
You'll either have to work with complex numbers, or rewrite your maths to not use fractional powers of negative numbers.

You need to guard your computation against a^3 being larger than c; that's what returns a complex number. Make sure that you move the increment of a, so that the while uses that same value. Perhaps
while counter != 2 and c >= a**3:
b = round((c-(a**3))**(1/3.0))
if a < b and a**3 + b**3 == c:
counter = counter + 1
print(a,b)
a = a + 1
Output with c = 1729, the Ramanujan-Hardy number:
1 12
9 10
Also, why are you waiting for two solutions? "counter" puzzles me ... you could use a Boolean flag if you need only one solution.

Rounding error in generating perfect squares python [duplicate]

How could I check if a number is a perfect square?
Speed is of no concern, for now, just working.
See also: Integer square root in python.

The problem with relying on any floating point computation (math.sqrt(x), or x**0.5) is that you can't really be sure it's exact (for sufficiently large integers x, it won't be, and might even overflow). Fortunately (if one's in no hurry;-) there are many pure integer approaches, such as the following...:
def is_square(apositiveint):
x = apositiveint // 2
seen = set([x])
while x * x != apositiveint:
x = (x + (apositiveint // x)) // 2
if x in seen: return False
seen.add(x)
return True
for i in range(110, 130):
print i, is_square(i)
Hint: it's based on the "Babylonian algorithm" for square root, see wikipedia. It does work for any positive number for which you have enough memory for the computation to proceed to completion;-).
Edit: let's see an example...
x = 12345678987654321234567 ** 2
for i in range(x, x+2):
print i, is_square(i)
this prints, as desired (and in a reasonable amount of time, too;-):
152415789666209426002111556165263283035677489 True
152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490 False
Please, before you propose solutions based on floating point intermediate results, make sure they work correctly on this simple example -- it's not that hard (you just need a few extra checks in case the sqrt computed is a little off), just takes a bit of care.
And then try with x**7 and find clever way to work around the problem you'll get,
OverflowError: long int too large to convert to float
you'll have to get more and more clever as the numbers keep growing, of course.
If I was in a hurry, of course, I'd use gmpy -- but then, I'm clearly biased;-).
>>> import gmpy
>>> gmpy.is_square(x**7)
1
>>> gmpy.is_square(x**7 + 1)
0
Yeah, I know, that's just so easy it feels like cheating (a bit the way I feel towards Python in general;-) -- no cleverness at all, just perfect directness and simplicity (and, in the case of gmpy, sheer speed;-)...

Use Newton's method to quickly zero in on the nearest integer square root, then square it and see if it's your number. See isqrt.
Python ≥ 3.8 has math.isqrt. If using an older version of Python, look for the "def isqrt(n)" implementation here.
import math
def is_square(i: int) -> bool:
return i == math.isqrt(i) ** 2

Since you can never depend on exact comparisons when dealing with floating point computations (such as these ways of calculating the square root), a less error-prone implementation would be
import math
def is_square(integer):
root = math.sqrt(integer)
return integer == int(root + 0.5) ** 2
Imagine integer is 9. math.sqrt(9) could be 3.0, but it could also be something like 2.99999 or 3.00001, so squaring the result right off isn't reliable. Knowing that int takes the floor value, increasing the float value by 0.5 first means we'll get the value we're looking for if we're in a range where float still has a fine enough resolution to represent numbers near the one for which we are looking.

If youre interested, I have a pure-math response to a similar question at math stackexchange, "Detecting perfect squares faster than by extracting square root".
My own implementation of isSquare(n) may not be the best, but I like it. Took me several months of study in math theory, digital computation and python programming, comparing myself to other contributors, etc., to really click with this method. I like its simplicity and efficiency though. I havent seen better. Tell me what you think.
def isSquare(n):
## Trivial checks
if type(n) != int: ## integer
return False
if n < 0: ## positivity
return False
if n == 0: ## 0 pass
return True
## Reduction by powers of 4 with bit-logic
while n&3 == 0:
n=n>>2
## Simple bit-logic test. All perfect squares, in binary,
## end in 001, when powers of 4 are factored out.
if n&7 != 1:
return False
if n==1:
return True ## is power of 4, or even power of 2
## Simple modulo equivalency test
c = n%10
if c in {3, 7}:
return False ## Not 1,4,5,6,9 in mod 10
if n % 7 in {3, 5, 6}:
return False ## Not 1,2,4 mod 7
if n % 9 in {2,3,5,6,8}:
return False
if n % 13 in {2,5,6,7,8,11}:
return False
## Other patterns
if c == 5: ## if it ends in a 5
if (n//10)%10 != 2:
return False ## then it must end in 25
if (n//100)%10 not in {0,2,6}:
return False ## and in 025, 225, or 625
if (n//100)%10 == 6:
if (n//1000)%10 not in {0,5}:
return False ## that is, 0625 or 5625
else:
if (n//10)%4 != 0:
return False ## (4k)*10 + (1,9)
## Babylonian Algorithm. Finding the integer square root.
## Root extraction.
s = (len(str(n))-1) // 2
x = (10**s) * 4
A = {x, n}
while x * x != n:
x = (x + (n // x)) >> 1
if x in A:
return False
A.add(x)
return True
Pretty straight forward. First it checks that we have an integer, and a positive one at that. Otherwise there is no point. It lets 0 slip through as True (necessary or else next block is infinite loop).
The next block of code systematically removes powers of 4 in a very fast sub-algorithm using bit shift and bit logic operations. We ultimately are not finding the isSquare of our original n but of a k<n that has been scaled down by powers of 4, if possible. This reduces the size of the number we are working with and really speeds up the Babylonian method, but also makes other checks faster too.
The third block of code performs a simple Boolean bit-logic test. The least significant three digits, in binary, of any perfect square are 001. Always. Save for leading zeros resulting from powers of 4, anyway, which has already been accounted for. If it fails the test, you immediately know it isnt a square. If it passes, you cant be sure.
Also, if we end up with a 1 for a test value then the test number was originally a power of 4, including perhaps 1 itself.
Like the third block, the fourth tests the ones-place value in decimal using simple modulus operator, and tends to catch values that slip through the previous test. Also a mod 7, mod 8, mod 9, and mod 13 test.
The fifth block of code checks for some of the well-known perfect square patterns. Numbers ending in 1 or 9 are preceded by a multiple of four. And numbers ending in 5 must end in 5625, 0625, 225, or 025. I had included others but realized they were redundant or never actually used.
Lastly, the sixth block of code resembles very much what the top answerer - Alex Martelli - answer is. Basically finds the square root using the ancient Babylonian algorithm, but restricting it to integer values while ignoring floating point. Done both for speed and extending the magnitudes of values that are testable. I used sets instead of lists because it takes far less time, I used bit shifts instead of division by two, and I smartly chose an initial start value much more efficiently.
By the way, I did test Alex Martelli's recommended test number, as well as a few numbers many orders magnitude larger, such as:
x=1000199838770766116385386300483414671297203029840113913153824086810909168246772838680374612768821282446322068401699727842499994541063844393713189701844134801239504543830737724442006577672181059194558045164589783791764790043104263404683317158624270845302200548606715007310112016456397357027095564872551184907513312382763025454118825703090010401842892088063527451562032322039937924274426211671442740679624285180817682659081248396873230975882215128049713559849427311798959652681930663843994067353808298002406164092996533923220683447265882968239141724624870704231013642255563984374257471112743917655991279898690480703935007493906644744151022265929975993911186879561257100479593516979735117799410600147341193819147290056586421994333004992422258618475766549646258761885662783430625 ** 2
for i in range(x, x+2):
print(i, isSquare(i))
printed the following results:
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890625 True
1000399717477066534083185452789672211951514938424998708930175541558932213310056978758103599452364409903384901149641614494249195605016959576235097480592396214296565598519295693079257885246632306201885850365687426564365813280963724310434494316592041592681626416195491751015907716210235352495422858432792668507052756279908951163972960239286719854867504108121432187033786444937064356645218196398775923710931242852937602515835035177768967470757847368349565128635934683294155947532322786360581473152034468071184081729335560769488880138928479829695277968766082973795720937033019047838250608170693879209655321034310764422462828792636246742456408134706264621790736361118589122797268261542115823201538743148116654378511916000714911467547209475246784887830649309238110794938892491396597873160778553131774466638923135932135417900066903068192088883207721545109720968467560224268563643820599665232314256575428214983451466488658896488012211237139254674708538347237589290497713613898546363590044902791724541048198769085430459186735166233549186115282574626012296888817453914112423361525305960060329430234696000121420787598967383958525670258016851764034555105019265380321048686563527396844220047826436035333266263375049097675787975100014823583097518824871586828195368306649956481108708929669583308777347960115138098217676704862934389659753628861667169905594181756523762369645897154232744410732552956489694024357481100742138381514396851789639339362228442689184910464071202445106084939268067445115601375050153663645294106475257440167535462278022649865332161044187890626 False
And it did this in 0.33 seconds.
In my opinion, my algorithm works the same as Alex Martelli's, with all the benefits thereof, but has the added benefit highly efficient simple-test rejections that save a lot of time, not to mention the reduction in size of test numbers by powers of 4, which improves speed, efficiency, accuracy and the size of numbers that are testable. Probably especially true in non-Python implementations.
Roughly 99% of all integers are rejected as non-Square before Babylonian root extraction is even implemented, and in 2/3 the time it would take the Babylonian to reject the integer. And though these tests dont speed up the process that significantly, the reduction in all test numbers to an odd by dividing out all powers of 4 really accelerates the Babylonian test.
I did a time comparison test. I tested all integers from 1 to 10 Million in succession. Using just the Babylonian method by itself (with my specially tailored initial guess) it took my Surface 3 an average of 165 seconds (with 100% accuracy). Using just the logical tests in my algorithm (excluding the Babylonian), it took 127 seconds, it rejected 99% of all integers as non-Square without mistakenly rejecting any perfect squares. Of those integers that passed, only 3% were perfect Squares (a much higher density). Using the full algorithm above that employs both the logical tests and the Babylonian root extraction, we have 100% accuracy, and test completion in only 14 seconds. The first 100 Million integers takes roughly 2 minutes 45 seconds to test.
EDIT: I have been able to bring down the time further. I can now test the integers 0 to 100 Million in 1 minute 40 seconds. A lot of time is wasted checking the data type and the positivity. Eliminate the very first two checks and I cut the experiment down by a minute. One must assume the user is smart enough to know that negatives and floats are not perfect squares.

import math
def is_square(n):
sqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return (sqrt - int(sqrt)) == 0
A perfect square is a number that can be expressed as the product of two equal integers. math.sqrt(number) return a float. int(math.sqrt(number)) casts the outcome to int.
If the square root is an integer, like 3, for example, then math.sqrt(number) - int(math.sqrt(number)) will be 0, and the if statement will be False. If the square root was a real number like 3.2, then it will be True and print "it's not a perfect square".
It fails for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.

My answer is:
def is_square(x):
return x**.5 % 1 == 0
It basically does a square root, then modulo by 1 to strip the integer part and if the result is 0 return True otherwise return False. In this case x can be any large number, just not as large as the max float number that python can handle: 1.7976931348623157e+308
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.

This can be solved using the decimal module to get arbitrary precision square roots and easy checks for "exactness":
import math
from decimal import localcontext, Context, Inexact
def is_perfect_square(x):
# If you want to allow negative squares, then set x = abs(x) instead
if x < 0:
return False
# Create localized, default context so flags and traps unset
with localcontext(Context()) as ctx:
# Set a precision sufficient to represent x exactly; `x or 1` avoids
# math domain error for log10 when x is 0
ctx.prec = math.ceil(math.log10(x or 1)) + 1 # Wrap ceil call in int() on Py2
# Compute integer square root; don't even store result, just setting flags
ctx.sqrt(x).to_integral_exact()
# If previous line couldn't represent square root as exact int, sets Inexact flag
return not ctx.flags[Inexact]
For demonstration with truly huge values:
# I just kept mashing the numpad for awhile :-)
>>> base = 100009991439393999999393939398348438492389402490289028439083249803434098349083490340934903498034098390834980349083490384903843908309390282930823940230932490340983098349032098324908324098339779438974879480379380439748093874970843479280329708324970832497804329783429874329873429870234987234978034297804329782349783249873249870234987034298703249780349783497832497823497823497803429780324
>>> sqr = base ** 2
>>> sqr ** 0.5 # Too large to use floating point math
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
OverflowError: int too large to convert to float
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr)
True
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr-1)
False
>>> is_perfect_power(sqr+1)
False
If you increase the size of the value being tested, this eventually gets rather slow (takes close to a second for a 200,000 bit square), but for more moderate numbers (say, 20,000 bits), it's still faster than a human would notice for individual values (~33 ms on my machine). But since speed wasn't your primary concern, this is a good way to do it with Python's standard libraries.
Of course, it would be much faster to use gmpy2 and just test gmpy2.mpz(x).is_square(), but if third party packages aren't your thing, the above works quite well.

I just posted a slight variation on some of the examples above on another thread (Finding perfect squares) and thought I'd include a slight variation of what I posted there here (using nsqrt as a temporary variable), in case it's of interest / use:
import math
def is_square(n):
if not (isinstance(n, int) and (n >= 0)):
return False
else:
nsqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return nsqrt == math.trunc(nsqrt)
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.

A variant of #Alex Martelli's solution without set
When x in seen is True:
In most cases, it is the last one added, e.g. 1022 produces the x's sequence 511, 256, 129, 68, 41, 32, 31, 31;
In some cases (i.e., for the predecessors of perfect squares), it is the second-to-last one added, e.g. 1023 produces 511, 256, 129, 68, 41, 32, 31, 32.
Hence, it suffices to stop as soon as the current x is greater than or equal to the previous one:
def is_square(n):
assert n > 1
previous = n
x = n // 2
while x * x != n:
x = (x + (n // x)) // 2
if x >= previous:
return False
previous = x
return True
x = 12345678987654321234567 ** 2
assert not is_square(x-1)
assert is_square(x)
assert not is_square(x+1)
Equivalence with the original algorithm tested for 1 < n < 10**7. On the same interval, this slightly simpler variant is about 1.4 times faster.

This is my method:
def is_square(n) -> bool:
return int(n**0.5)**2 == int(n)
Take square root of number. Convert to integer. Take the square. If the numbers are equal, then it is a perfect square otherwise not.
It is incorrect for a large square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677489.

If the modulus (remainder) leftover from dividing by the square root is 0, then it is a perfect square.
def is_square(num: int) -> bool:
return num % math.sqrt(num) == 0
I checked this against a list of perfect squares going up to 1000.

It is possible to improve the Babylonian method by observing that the successive terms form a decreasing sequence if one starts above the square root of n.
def is_square(n):
assert n > 1
a = n
b = (a + n // a) // 2
while b < a:
a = b
b = (a + n // a) // 2
return a * a == n

If it's a perfect square, its square root will be an integer, the fractional part will be 0, we can use modulus operator to check fractional part, and check if it's 0, it does fail for some numbers, so, for safety, we will also check if it's square of the square root even if the fractional part is 0.
import math
def isSquare(n):
root = math.sqrt(n)
if root % 1 == 0:
if int(root) * int(root) == n:
return True
return False
isSquare(4761)

You could binary-search for the rounded square root. Square the result to see if it matches the original value.
You're probably better off with FogleBirds answer - though beware, as floating point arithmetic is approximate, which can throw this approach off. You could in principle get a false positive from a large integer which is one more than a perfect square, for instance, due to lost precision.

A simple way to do it (faster than the second one) :
def is_square(n):
return str(n**(1/2)).split(".")[1] == '0'
Another way:
def is_square(n):
if n == 0:
return True
else:
if n % 2 == 0 :
for i in range(2,n,2):
if i*i == n:
return True
else :
for i in range(1,n,2):
if i*i == n:
return True
return False

This response doesn't pertain to your stated question, but to an implicit question I see in the code you posted, ie, "how to check if something is an integer?"
The first answer you'll generally get to that question is "Don't!" And it's true that in Python, typechecking is usually not the right thing to do.
For those rare exceptions, though, instead of looking for a decimal point in the string representation of the number, the thing to do is use the isinstance function:
>>> isinstance(5,int)
True
>>> isinstance(5.0,int)
False
Of course this applies to the variable rather than a value. If I wanted to determine whether the value was an integer, I'd do this:
>>> x=5.0
>>> round(x) == x
True
But as everyone else has covered in detail, there are floating-point issues to be considered in most non-toy examples of this kind of thing.

If you want to loop over a range and do something for every number that is NOT a perfect square, you could do something like this:
def non_squares(upper):
next_square = 0
diff = 1
for i in range(0, upper):
if i == next_square:
next_square += diff
diff += 2
continue
yield i
If you want to do something for every number that IS a perfect square, the generator is even easier:
(n * n for n in range(upper))

I think that this works and is very simple:
import math
def is_square(num):
sqrt = math.sqrt(num)
return sqrt == int(sqrt)
It is incorrect for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.

a=int(input('enter any number'))
flag=0
for i in range(1,a):
if a==i*i:
print(a,'is perfect square number')
flag=1
break
if flag==1:
pass
else:
print(a,'is not perfect square number')

In kotlin :
It's quite easy and it passed all test cases as well.
really thanks to >> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-quickest-way-to-determine-if-a-number-is-a-perfect-square
fun isPerfectSquare(num: Int): Boolean {
var result = false
var sum=0L
var oddNumber=1L
while(sum<num){
sum = sum + oddNumber
oddNumber = oddNumber+2
}
result = sum == num.toLong()
return result
}

def isPerfectSquare(self, num: int) -> bool:
left, right = 0, num
while left <= right:
mid = (left + right) // 2
if mid**2 < num:
left = mid + 1
elif mid**2 > num:
right = mid - 1
else:
return True
return False

This is an elegant, simple, fast and arbitrary solution that works for Python version >= 3.8:
from math import isqrt
def is_square(number):
if number >= 0:
return isqrt(number) ** 2 == number
return False

Decide how long the number will be.
take a delta 0.000000000000.......000001
see if the (sqrt(x))^2 - x is greater / equal /smaller than delta and decide based on the delta error.

import math
def is_square(n):
sqrt = math.sqrt(n)
return sqrt == int(sqrt)
It fails for a large non-square such as 152415789666209426002111556165263283035677490.

The idea is to run a loop from i = 1 to floor(sqrt(n)) then check if squaring it makes n.
bool isPerfectSquare(int n)
{
for (int i = 1; i * i <= n; i++) {
// If (i * i = n)
if ((n % i == 0) && (n / i == i)) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}

My answer is changing with the same code [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Why does integer division yield a float instead of another integer?
(4 answers)
Closed 5 months ago.
I am a complete python beginner and I am trying to solve this problem :
A number is called triangular if it is the sum of the first n positive
integers for some n For example, 10 is triangular because 10 = 1+2+3+4
and 21 is triangular because 21 = 1+2+3+4+5+6. Write a Python program
to find the smallest 6-digit triangular number. Enter it as your
answer below.
I have written this program:
n = 0
trinum = 0
while len(str(trinum)) < 6:
trinum = n*(n+1)/2
n += 1
print(trinum)
And it only works in the python I have installed on my computer if I say while len(str(trinum)) < 8: but it is supposed to be while len(str(trinum)) < 6:. So I went to http://www.skulpt.org/ and ran my code there and it gave me the right answer with while len(str(trinum)) < 6: like it's supposed to. But it doesn't work with 6 with the python i have installed on my computer. Does anyone have any idea what's going on?

Short Answer
In Python 3, division is always floating point division. So on the first pass you get something like str(trinum) == '0.5'. Which isn't what you want.
You're looking for integer division. The operator for that is //.
Long Answer
The division operator changed in Python 2.x to 3.x. Previously, the type of the result was dependent on the arguments. So 1/2 does integer division, but 1./2 does floating point division.
To clean this up, a new operator was introduced: //. This operator will always do integer division.
So in Python 3.x, this expression (4 * 5)/2 is equal to 10.0. Note that this number is less than 100, but it has 4 characters in it.
If instead, we did (4*5)//2, we would get the integer 10 back. Which would allow your condition to hold true.

In Python 2, the / operator performs integer division when possible: "x divided by y is a remainder b," throwing away the "b" (use the % operator to find "b"). In Python 3, the / operator always performs float division: "x divided by y is a.fgh." Get integer division in Python 3 with the // operator.

You have two problems here, that combine to give you the wrong answer.
The first problem is that you're using /, which means integer division in Python 2 (and the almost-Python language that Skulpt implements), but float division in Python 3. So, when you run it on your local machine with Python 3, you're going to get floating point numbers.
The second problem is that you're not checking for "under 6 digits" you're checking for "under 6 characters long". For positive integers, those are the same thing, but for floats, say, 1035.5 is only 4 digits, but it's 6 characters. So you exit early.
If you solve either problem, it will work, at least most of the time. But you really should solve both.
So:
n = 0
trinum = 0
while trinum < 10**6: # note comparing numbers, not string length
trinum = n*(n+1)//2 # note // instead of /
n += 1
print(trinum)
The first problem is fixed by using //, which always means integer division, instead of /, which means different things in different Python versions.
The second problem is fixed by comparing the number as a number to 10**6 (that is, 10 to the 6th power, which means 1 with 6 zeros, or 1000000) instead of comparing its length as a string to 6.

Taking Malik Brahimi's answer further:
from itertools import *
print(next(dropwhile(lambda n: n <= 99999, accumulate(count(1))))
count(1) is all the numbers from 1 to infinity.
accumulate(count(1)) is all the running totals of those numbers.
dropwhile(…) is skipping the initial running totals until we reach 100000, then all the rest of them.
next(…) is the next one after the ones we skipped.
Of course you could argue that a 1-liner that takes 4 lines to describe to a novice isn't as good as a 4-liner that doesn't need any explanation. :)
(Also, the dropwhile is a bit ugly. Most uses of it in Python are. In a language like Haskell, where you can write that predicate with operator sectioning instead of a lambda, like (<= 99999), it's a different story.)

The division method in Py2.x and 3.x is different - so that is probably why you had issues.
Just another suggestion - which doesn't deal with divisions and lengths - so less buggy in general. Plus addition is addition anywhere.
trinum = 0
idx =0
while trinum < 99999: #largest 5 digit number
idx += 1
trinum += idx
print trinum

import itertools # to get the count function
n, c = 0, itertools.count(1) # start at zero
while n <= 99999:
n = n + next(c)

question on karatsuba multiplication

I want to implement Karatsuba's 2-split multiplication in Python. However, writing numbers in the form
A=c*x+d
where x is a power of the base (let x=b^m) close to sqrt(A).
How am I supposed to find x, if I can't even use division and multiplication? Should I count the number of digits and shift A to the left by half the number of digits?
Thanks.

Almost. You don't shift A by half the number of digits; you shift 1. Of course, this is only efficient if the base is a power of 2, since "shifting" in base 10 (for example) has to be done with multiplications. (Edit: well, ok, you can multiply with shifts and additions. But it's ever so much simpler with a power of 2.)
If you're using Python 3.1 or greater, counting the bits is easy, because 3.1 introduced the int.bit_length() method. For other versions of Python, you can count the bits by copying A and shifting it right until it's 0. This can be done in O(log N) time (N = # of digits) with a sort of binary search method - shift by many bits, if it's 0 then that was too many, etc.

You already accepted an answer since I started writing this, but:
What Tom said: in Python 3.x you can get n = int.bit_length() directly.
In Python 2.x you get n in O(log2(A)) time by binary-search, like below.
Here is (2.x) code that calculates both. Let the base-2 exponent of x be n, i.e. x = 2**n.
First we get n by binary-search by shifting. (Really we only needed n/2, so that's one unnecessary last iteration).
Then when we know n, getting x,c,d is easy (still no using division)
def karatsuba_form(A,n=32):
"""Binary-search for Karatsuba form using binary shifts"""
# First search for n ~ log2(A)
step = n >> 1
while step>0:
c = A >> n
print 'n=%2d step=%2d -> c=%d' % (n,step,c)
if c:
n += step
else:
n -= step
# More concisely, could say: n = (n+step) if c else (n-step)
step >>= 1
# Then take x = 2^(n/2) ˜ sqrt(A)
ndiv2 = n/2
# Find Karatsuba form
c = (A >> ndiv2)
x = (1 << ndiv2)
d = A - (c << ndiv2)
return (x,c,d)

Your question is already answered in the article to which you referred: "Karatsuba's basic step works for any base B and any m, but the recursive algorithm is most efficient when m is equal to n/2, rounded up" ... n being the number of digits, and 0 <= value_of_digit < B.
Some perspective that might help:
You are allowed (and required!) to use elementary operations like number_of_digits // 2 and divmod(digit_x * digit_x, B) ... in school arithmetic, where B is 10, you are required (for example) to know that divmod(9 * 8, 10) produces (7, 2).
When implementing large number arithmetic on a computer, it is usual to make B the largest power of 2 that will support the elementary multiplication operation conveniently. For example in the CPython implementation on a 32-bit machine, B is chosen to to be 2 ** 15 (i.e. 32768), because then product = digit_x * digit_y; hi = product >> 15; lo = product & 0x7FFF; works without overflow and without concern about a sign bit.
I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with an implementation in Python that uses B == 2, with numbers represented by Python ints, whose implementation in C already uses the Karatsuba algorithm for multiplying numbers that are large enough to make it worthwhile. It can't be speed.
As a learning exercise, you might like to try representing a number as a list of digits, with the base B being an input parameter.