Develop Reference

Sum of all prime numbers between 1 and N in Python

I'm new to programming. While trying to solve this problem, I'm getting the wrong answer. I checked my code a number of times but was not able to figure out the mistake. Please, help me on this simple problem. The problem is as follows:
Given a positive integer N, calculate the sum of all prime numbers between 1 and N (inclusive). The first line of input contains an integer T denoting the number of test cases. T testcases follow. Each testcase contains one line of input containing N. For each testcase, in a new line, print the sum of all prime numbers between 1 and N.
And my code is:
from math import sqrt
sum = 0
test = int(input())
for i in range(test):
max = int(input())
if max==1:
sum = 0
elif max==2:
sum += 2
else:
sum = sum + 2
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(max)) + 1
for y in range(2,half):
res = x%y
if res==0:
sum = sum + x
break
print(sum)
For input 5 and 10, my code is giving output 6 and 48 respectively, while the correct answer is 10 and 17 respectively. Please, figure out the mistake in my code.

Here, I implemented simple program to find the sum of all prime numbers between 1 to n.
Consider primeAddition() as a function and ip as an input parameter. It may help you to solve your problem.Try it.
Code snippet:
def primeAddition(ip):
# list to store prime numbers...
prime = [True] * (ip + 1)
p = 2
while p * p <= ip:
# If prime[p] is not changed, then it is a prime...
if prime[p] == True:
# Update all multiples of p...
i = p * 2
while i <= ip:
prime[i] = False
i += p
p += 1
# Return sum of prime numbers...
sum = 0
for i in range (2, ip + 1):
if(prime[i]):
sum += i
return sum
#The program is ready... Now, time to call the primeAddition() function with any argument... Here I pass 5 as an argument...
#Function call...
print primeAddition(5)

This is the most broken part of your code, it's doing the opposite of what you want:
res = x%y
if res==0:
sum = sum + x
break
You only increment sum if you get through the entire loop without breaking. (And don't use sum as you're redefining a Python built-in.) This can be checked using the special case of else on a for loop, aka "no break". I've made that change below as well as corrected some inefficiencies:
from math import sqrt
T = int(input())
for _ in range(T):
N = int(input())
sum_of_primes = 0
if N < 2:
pass
elif N == 2:
sum_of_primes = 2
else:
sum_of_primes = 2
for number in range(3, N + 1, 2):
for odd in range(3, int(sqrt(number)) + 1, 2):
if (number % odd) == 0:
break
else: # no break
sum_of_primes += number
print(sum_of_primes)
OUTPUT
> python3 test.py
3
5
10
10
17
23
100
>

A slight modification to what you have:
from math import sqrt
sum = 0
test = int(input())
max = int(input())
for x in range(test,max+1):
if x == 1:
pass
else:
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
for y in range(2,half):
res = x%y
if res==0:
break
else:
sum = sum + x
print(sum)
Your biggest error was that you were doing the sum = sum + x before the break rather than outside in an else statement.
PS: (although you can) I'd recommend not using variable names like max and sum in your code. These are special functions that are now overridden.

Because your logic is not correct.
for y in range(2,half):
res = x%y
if res==0:
sum = sum + x
break
here you check for the factors and if there is a factor then adds to sum which is opposite of the Primes. So check for the numbers where there is no factors(except 1).
from math import sqrt
test = int(input())
for i in range(test):
sum = 0
max = int(input())
if max==1:
sum = 0
elif max==2:
sum += 2
else:
sum = sum + 2
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
if all(x%y!=0 for y in range(2,half)):
sum = sum + x
print(sum)

First of all, declare sum to be zero at the beginning of the for i loop.
The problem lies in the if statement at almost the very end of the code, as you add x to the sum, if the res is equal to zero, meaning that the number is indeed not a prime number. You can see that this is the case, because you get an output of 6 when entering 5, as the only non-prime number in the range 1 to and including 5 is 4 and you add 2 to the sum at the beginning already.
Last but not least, you should change the
half = int(sqrt(max)) + 1
line to
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
Try to work with my information provided and fix the code yourself. You learn the most by not copying other people's code.
Happy coding!

I believe the mistake in your code might be coming from the following lines of code:
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(max)) + 1
Since you are looping using x, you should change int(sqrt(max)) to int(sqrt(x)) like this:
for x in range(3,max+1):
half = int(sqrt(x)) + 1
Your code is trying to see if max is prime N times, where you should be seeing if every number from 1-N is prime instead.
This is my first time answering a question so if you need more help just let me know.

Prime number calculator produces no output (python)

I am trying to find the 10001st prime using a basic logic:
1) Identify if a number is prime
2) Add it to a list if prime
3) Print the 10001st term in the list
Here is my code:
primelist=[]
import math
i=2
while True:
for x in range(2, int(math.sqrt(i))):
if i % x == 0:
continue
else:
primelist.append(i)
if len(primelist)== 10001:
break
print(primelist[-1])
Is the logic or code fundamentally wrong or inefficient?
What can I do to ameliorate/ make it work?
EDIT
I have incremented i (i+=1) and used all() to check if everything was indivisible, in response to comments
primelist=[2]
import math
i=3
while True:
for x in range(2, int(i**(1/2))):
if all(i%x!=0 for x in range(2, int(math.sqrt(i)))):
primelist.append(i)
i+=1
if len(primelist)== 10001:
break
print(primelist[-1])

Keep the algorithm/code structure the same (no optimization done), so we can easily share several language points, please see inline comments:
primelist=[]
import math
i=2
while True:
#changed to sqrt + 1, the second parameter of range is not inclusive,
#by adding 1, we make sure sqrt itself is included
for x in range(2, int(math.sqrt(i) + 1)):
if i % x == 0:
#you want break not continue, continue will try
#next possible factor, since you already figured out that this
#is not a prime, no need to keep trying
#continue
break
#a for/else block, many python users never encountered this python
#syntax. The else block is only triggered, if the for loop is naturally
#completed without running into the break statement
else:
#a little debugging, to visually confirm we generated all primes
print("adding {}".format(i))
primelist.append(i)
if len(primelist)== 11:
break
#advance to the next number, this is important,
#otherwise i will always be 2
i += 1
print(primelist[-1])
If you would like to optimize the algorithm, search online for "prime sieve".

This one should work if you want to stay with your algorithm:
import math
def is_prime(n):
for x in range(2, int(math.sqrt(n)) + 1):
if n % x == 0:
return False
return True
primelist = []
i = 2
while True:
if is_prime(i) is True:
primelist.append(i)
i += 1
if len(primelist) == 10001:
break
print(primelist[-1])

Here's a version of your code that's a bit faster, and which doesn't use much RAM. We really don't need to build a list of the primes we find. We don't use the numbers in that list to find more primes, and we're really only interested in its length. So instead of building a list we merely keep count of the primes we find.
# Include 2 in the count
count = 1
i = 3
while True:
if all(i % x for x in range(3, int(i ** 0.5) + 1, 2)):
count += 1
if count == 10001:
break
i += 2
print(i)
FWIW, here's a faster solution that uses sieving. We estimate the required size of the sieve using the prime number theorem. Wikipedia gives these bounds for p(n), the n'th prime number, which is valid for n >= 6:
log(n) + log(log(n)) - 1 < p(n) / n < log(n) + log(log(n))
We use the upper bound as the highest number in the sieve. For n < 6 we use a hard-coded list.
To save space, this sieve only holds odd numbers, so we treat the case of p(1) == 2 as a special case.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
''' Use a sieve of Eratosthenes to find nth prime
Written by PM 2Ring 2017.05.01
Sieve code derived from primes1 by Robert William Hanks
See http://stackoverflow.com/a/3035188/4014959
'''
from math import log
from sys import argv
def main():
num = int(argv[1]) if len(argv) > 1 else 10001
if num == 1:
# Handle 2 as a special case
print(1, 2)
return
elif num < 6:
# Use a pre-built table for (3, 5, 7, 11)
primes = [1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 1]
else:
# Compute upper bound from Prime number theorem
x = log(num)
hi = int(num * (x + log(x)))
print('upper bound', hi)
# Create a boolean list of odd primes in range(hi)
primes = [True] * (hi//2)
for i in range(3, 1 + int(hi**0.5), 2):
if primes[i//2]:
primes[i*i//2::i] = [False] * ((hi - i*i - 1) // (2*i) + 1)
# Count the primes until we get the nth one
k = 0
for i, b in enumerate(primes):
if b:
k += 1
if k == num:
break
print(num, 2*i+1)
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
This code finds p(10001) = 104743 in under 0.15 seconds on my old single core 32 bit 2GHz machine running Python 3.6.0. It finds p(500000) = 7368787 in about 2.2 seconds.

Why are these lines of code in python only outputting the same answer?

I'm trying to get this program to return all possible multiples of 3 and 5 below 1001 and then add them all together and print it but for some reason these lines of code only seem to be printing one number and that number is the number 2 which is obviously wrong. Can someone point me in the right direction to why this code is grossly wrong?
n = 0
x = n<1001
while (n < 1001):
s = x%3 + x%5
print s

You've got a few mistakes:
x is a boolean type
Your loop never ends
adding values to mimic lists?
Edit
Didn't see the part where you wanted sum, so you could employ a for-in loop or just a simple one like so:
sum = 0
for i in range(1001):
if(i % 3 == 0 or i % 5):
sum += i
print(sum)
(Python 3)
You need to stop while at some point by incrementing n. Here is some code:
nums = []
n = 0
while (n < 1001):
# in here you check for the multiples
# then append using nums.append()
n += 1
This creates a loop and a list that accounts for every number in 0 to 1000. In the body, check for either condition and append to the list, then print out the values in the list.
num is a list where you are going to store all the values that apply, (those numbers who are divisible by 3 and 5, which you calculate with modulo). You append to that list when a condition is met. Here is some code:
nums = []
n = 0
while (n < 1001):
if(n % 3 == 0 or n % 5 ==0):
nums.append(n)
n += 1
print(n) #or for loop for each value
Explanation: a list of numbers called num stores the numbers that are divisible by 3 or 5. The loop starts at zero and goes to 1000, and for all the values that are divisible by 3 or 5, they will be added to the list. Then it prints the list.
Of course there is a simpler approach with a range:
for i in range(1001):
if(i % 3 == 0 or i % 5 == 0):
print(i)
This will print out all the values one by one. It is 1001 because the upper limit is exclusive.

true=1
false=0
so:
x = n<1001
we have x=1 because 0<1001 is true
s = x%3 + x%5
the remainder of 1/3 is 1 and 1/5 is 1

In your code:
1. x=n<1001 - generates a boolean value; on which we can't perform a mathematical operation.
In while loop:
your variable n,x are not changing; they are constant to same value for all the iterations.
Solution 1:
Below code will help you out.
s=0
for i in range(1,1002):
if( i%3 == 0 or i%5 == 0):
s = s + i
print(s)
Solution: 2
There is one more approach you can use.
var = [i for i in range(1,1002) if i%3==0 or i%5 ==0]
print(sum(var))

Beginner looking for advice/help on this code (Python) [duplicate]

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

Is this an infinite loop?

I'm trying to write a program that picks out the primes in a range from 3 to 9. Here's my code:
primes_list = []
number = 3
while number > 2 and number < 10:
for n in range(2, number):
if number % n == 0:
break
number += 1
else:
primes_list.append(number)
print primes_list
This seems to be an infinite loop but that's just a guess because the output never shows up. If it is an infinite loop, why?
Also I was wondering if there's some sort of list comprehension that can pick out only prime numbers? Maybe list comprehensions is the more efficient way to go? only I haven't figure out how to just filter the primes.
Any help or comment is deeply appreciated.

while number > 2 and number < 10:
for n in range(2, number):
if number % n == 0:
break
else:
primes_list.append(number)
number += 1
>>> primes_list
[3, 5, 7]
>>>
This is probably what you had in mind.
Note that number += 1 inside the first loop was misplaced

for n in range(2, number):
if number % n == 0:
break
number += 1
Because of the break, you never get to
number += 1
when that condition is met. It will just keep appending number to the list forever.
Try something along the lines of:
primes_list = []
lower = 3
upper = 10
for number in range(lower, upper):
if(isPrime(number)):
primes_list.append(number)
print primes_list
#note this is not an efficient implementation
def isPrime(number):
for n in range(2, number):
if number % n == 0:
return false
return true