At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
primecount=0 testnumber=3 divisor=2 while(testnumber%2!=0): while(divisor
I think it looks pretty good. The only thing is it looks as though it will test for a divisor up to one less than the testnumber. Ex. testnumber is 999, divisor will test to 998, which you do not need to do. You can stop the divisor much earlier. This would only make a difference the higher your testnumber becomes.
That will work, though I dislike the use of the else clause on loops as I find them very difficult to read. I much prefer the use of boolean variables as controls. primecount=1 # we're starting at 3, so we add 1 to our count for 2 (the first prime) testnumber=3 while primecount < 1000: # find the 1000th prime divisor=2 divisorFound = False while (divisor
blah.. this interface is terrible at formatting code. that divisor = divisor + 1 line should be unindented to the same level as the if not in the if's block.
thankyou..the interface of this website was too bad.....your program was neat
i think you are also using all the divisors less than the number ..its not needed and it takes more time ....using squareroot saves more compilation time...