Since zero is false, I suppose the "!= 0" parts could be omitted from the conditionals, but I think it's easier to read with them in. To do so I wrote a generator for prime numbers: def primes (): x 2 while True: for y in xrange (2, x/2 + 1): if x y 0: break else: yield x x x + 1. The integer division used to calculate m will have to be changed for Python 3. I'm trying to get a better grasp on generators in Python because I don't use them enough (I think generators are cool). m is a little tricky it's the number of multiples of i that are greater than i**2 and less than or equal to n.
The three terms that define the slice are the same as the three terms that define the range for j in the "Alex" code, which is why I think the code is still readable. So according to the results, it seems possible to generate a list of only prime numbers by calculating f2(k+s) into a specific range of K1.k and finding the. The slice assignment seems to be the big time saver. The code below runs about 50% faster than the "Alex" code and isn't too obscure, I think: nroot = int(sqrt(n)) Twice as fast? In my benchmarks (on an Intel iMac with n=1,000,000, n=10,000,000, and n=20,000,000), the recipe code is only about 10% faster than the "Alex" code, although its memory use is probably much smaller. Essentially I would like to automate the process that is being shown in my code so it can work for any range and all prime numbers.Def primes ( n ): if n = 2 : return elif n < 2 : return s = range ( 3, n + 1, 2 ) mroot = n ** 0.5 half = ( n + 1 ) / 2 - 1 i = 0 m = 3 while m <= mroot : if s : j = ( m * m - 3 ) / 2 s = 0 while j < half : s = 0 j += m i = i + 1 m = 2 * i + 3 return + print primes ( 13 ) print primes ( 3000 ) - we get. My code is very long and redundant but I know it can definitely be condensed and made less repetitive with a few changes and I was hoping I could be pointed in the right direction. I see that there are many different ways to generate prime numbers.
0 kommentar(er)
