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 am trying to implement a function primeFac() that takes as input a positive integer n and returns a list containing all the numbers in the prime factorization of n.
I have gotten this far but I think it would be better to use recursion here, not sure how to create a recursive code here, what would be the base case? to start with.
My code:
def primes(n):
primfac = []
d = 2
while (n > 1):
if n%d==0:
primfac.append(d)
# how do I continue from here... ?
A simple trial division:
def primes(n):
primfac = []
d = 2
while d*d <= n:
while (n % d) == 0:
primfac.append(d) # supposing you want multiple factors repeated
n //= d
d += 1
if n > 1:
primfac.append(n)
return primfac
with O(sqrt(n)) complexity (worst case). You can easily improve it by special-casing 2 and looping only over odd d (or special-casing more small primes and looping over fewer possible divisors).
The primefac module does factorizations with all the fancy techniques mathematicians have developed over the centuries:
#!python
import primefac
import sys
n = int( sys.argv[1] )
factors = list( primefac.primefac(n) )
print '\n'.join(map(str, factors))
This is a comprehension based solution, it might be the closest you can get to a recursive solution in Python while being possible to use for large numbers.
You can get proper divisors with one line:
divisors = [ d for d in xrange(2,int(math.sqrt(n))) if n % d == 0 ]
then we can test for a number in divisors to be prime:
def isprime(d): return all( d % od != 0 for od in divisors if od != d )
which tests that no other divisors divides d.
Then we can filter prime divisors:
prime_divisors = [ d for d in divisors if isprime(d) ]
Of course, it can be combined in a single function:
def primes(n):
divisors = [ d for d in range(2,n//2+1) if n % d == 0 ]
return [ d for d in divisors if \
all( d % od != 0 for od in divisors if od != d ) ]
Here, the \ is there to break the line without messing with Python indentation.
I've tweaked #user448810's answer to use iterators from itertools (and python3.4, but it should be back-portable). The solution is about 15% faster.
import itertools
def factors(n):
f = 2
increments = itertools.chain([1,2,2], itertools.cycle([4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6]))
for incr in increments:
if f*f > n:
break
while n % f == 0:
yield f
n //= f
f += incr
if n > 1:
yield n
Note that this returns an iterable, not a list. Wrap it in list() if that's what you want.
Most of the above solutions appear somewhat incomplete. A prime factorization would repeat each prime factor of the number (e.g. 9 = [3 3]).
Also, the above solutions could be written as lazy functions for implementation convenience.
The use sieve Of Eratosthenes to find primes to test is optimal, but; the above implementation used more memory than necessary.
I'm not certain if/how "wheel factorization" would be superior to applying only prime factors, for division tests of n.
While these solution are indeed helpful, I'd suggest the following two functions -
Function-1 :
def primes(n):
if n < 2: return
yield 2
plist = [2]
for i in range(3,n):
test = True
for j in plist:
if j>n**0.5:
break
if i%j==0:
test = False
break
if test:
plist.append(i)
yield i
Function-2 :
def pfactors(n):
for p in primes(n):
while n%p==0:
yield p
n=n//p
if n==1: return
list(pfactors(99999))
[3, 3, 41, 271]
3*3*41*271
99999
list(pfactors(13290059))
[3119, 4261]
3119*4261
13290059
Here is my version of factorization by trial division, which incorporates the optimization of dividing only by two and the odd integers proposed by Daniel Fischer:
def factors(n):
f, fs = 3, []
while n % 2 == 0:
fs.append(2)
n /= 2
while f * f <= n:
while n % f == 0:
fs.append(f)
n /= f
f += 2
if n > 1: fs.append(n)
return fs
An improvement on trial division by two and the odd numbers is wheel factorization, which uses a cyclic set of gaps between potential primes to greatly reduce the number of trial divisions. Here we use a 2,3,5-wheel:
def factors(n):
gaps = [1,2,2,4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6]
length, cycle = 11, 3
f, fs, nxt = 2, [], 0
while f * f <= n:
while n % f == 0:
fs.append(f)
n /= f
f += gaps[nxt]
nxt += 1
if nxt == length:
nxt = cycle
if n > 1: fs.append(n)
return fs
Thus, print factors(13290059) will output [3119, 4261]. Factoring wheels have the same O(sqrt(n)) time complexity as normal trial division, but will be two or three times faster in practice.
I've done a lot of work with prime numbers at my blog. Please feel free to visit and study.
def get_prime_factors(number):
"""
Return prime factor list for a given number
number - an integer number
Example: get_prime_factors(8) --> [2, 2, 2].
"""
if number == 1:
return []
# We have to begin with 2 instead of 1 or 0
# to avoid the calls infinite or the division by 0
for i in xrange(2, number):
# Get remainder and quotient
rd, qt = divmod(number, i)
if not qt: # if equal to zero
return [i] + get_prime_factors(rd)
return [number]
Most of the answer are making things too complex. We can do this
def prime_factors(n):
num = []
#add 2 to list or prime factors and remove all even numbers(like sieve of ertosthenes)
while(n%2 == 0):
num.append(2)
n /= 2
#divide by odd numbers and remove all of their multiples increment by 2 if no perfectlly devides add it
for i in xrange(3, int(sqrt(n))+1, 2):
while (n%i == 0):
num.append(i)
n /= i
#if no is > 2 i.e no is a prime number that is only divisible by itself add it
if n>2:
num.append(n)
print (num)
Algorithm from GeeksforGeeks
prime factors of a number:
def primefactors(x):
factorlist=[]
loop=2
while loop<=x:
if x%loop==0:
x//=loop
factorlist.append(loop)
else:
loop+=1
return factorlist
x = int(input())
alist=primefactors(x)
print(alist)
You'll get the list.
If you want to get the pairs of prime factors of a number try this:
http://pythonplanet.blogspot.in/2015/09/list-of-all-unique-pairs-of-prime.html
def factorize(n):
for f in range(2,n//2+1):
while n%f == 0:
n //= f
yield f
It's slow but dead simple. If you want to create a command-line utility, you could do:
import sys
[print(i) for i in factorize(int(sys.argv[1]))]
Here is an efficient way to accomplish what you need:
def prime_factors(n):
l = []
if n < 2: return l
if n&1==0:
l.append(2)
while n&1==0: n>>=1
i = 3
m = int(math.sqrt(n))+1
while i < m:
if n%i==0:
l.append(i)
while n%i==0: n//=i
i+= 2
m = int(math.sqrt(n))+1
if n>2: l.append(n)
return l
prime_factors(198765430488765430290) = [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 23, 3607, 3803, 52579]
You can use sieve Of Eratosthenes to generate all the primes up to (n/2) + 1 and then use a list comprehension to get all the prime factors:
def rwh_primes2(n):
# http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
""" Input n>=6, Returns a list of primes, 2 <= p < n """
correction = (n%6>1)
n = {0:n,1:n-1,2:n+4,3:n+3,4:n+2,5:n+1}[n%6]
sieve = [True] * (n/3)
sieve[0] = False
for i in xrange(int(n**0.5)/3+1):
if sieve[i]:
k=3*i+1|1
sieve[ ((k*k)/3) ::2*k]=[False]*((n/6-(k*k)/6-1)/k+1)
sieve[(k*k+4*k-2*k*(i&1))/3::2*k]=[False]*((n/6-(k*k+4*k-2*k*(i&1))/6-1)/k+1)
return [2,3] + [3*i+1|1 for i in xrange(1,n/3-correction) if sieve[i]]
def primeFacs(n):
primes = rwh_primes2((n/2)+1)
return [x for x in primes if n%x == 0]
print primeFacs(99999)
#[3, 41, 271]
from sets import Set
# this function generates all the possible factors of a required number x
def factors_mult(X):
L = []
[L.append(i) for i in range(2,X) if X % i == 0]
return L
# this function generates list containing prime numbers upto the required number x
def prime_range(X):
l = [2]
for i in range(3,X+1):
for j in range(2,i):
if i % j == 0:
break
else:
l.append(i)
return l
# This function computes the intersection of the two lists by invoking Set from the sets module
def prime_factors(X):
y = Set(prime_range(X))
z = Set(factors_mult(X))
k = list(y & z)
k = sorted(k)
print "The prime factors of " + str(X) + " is ", k
# for eg
prime_factors(356)
Simple way to get the desired solution
def Factor(n):
d = 2
factors = []
while n >= d*d:
if n % d == 0:
n//=d
# print(d,end = " ")
factors.append(d)
else:
d = d+1
if n>1:
# print(int(n))
factors.append(n)
return factors
This is the code I made. It works fine for numbers with small primes, but it takes a while for numbers with primes in the millions.
def pfactor(num):
div = 2
pflist = []
while div <= num:
if num % div == 0:
pflist.append(div)
num /= div
else:
div += 1
# The stuff afterwards is just to convert the list of primes into an expression
pfex = ''
for item in list(set(pflist)):
pfex += str(item) + '^' + str(pflist.count(item)) + ' * '
pfex = pfex[0:-3]
return pfex
I would like to share my code for finding the prime factors of number given input by the user:
a = int(input("Enter a number: "))
def prime(a):
b = list()
i = 1
while i<=a:
if a%i ==0 and i!=1 and i!=a:
b.append(i)
i+=1
return b
c = list()
for x in prime(a):
if len(prime(x)) == 0:
c.append(x)
print(c)
def prime_factors(num, dd=2):
while dd <= num and num>1:
if num % dd == 0:
num //= dd
yield dd
dd +=1
Lot of answers above fail on small primes, e.g. 3, 5 and 7. The above is succinct and fast enough for ordinary use.
print list(prime_factors(3))
[3]