anonymous
  • anonymous
Here is my code for 1a. What do you guys think? Could it be more efficient? http://dpaste.com/hold/534504/
MIT 6.00 Intro Computer Science (OCW)
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
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.
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
in your algorithm you don't have to go all the way up to the candidate number. You can go to (n/2)+1 to cut down on computation
anonymous
  • anonymous
consider divisors up to (n/2)+1 should speed it up
anonymous
  • anonymous
you only need to go to sqrt(n) careful - optimizing early to the dark side leads kepp this under your pillow: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSpeed/PerformanceTips

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
How come the divisors only need to go up to (n/2)+1?
anonymous
  • anonymous
If there is a divisor bigger than n/2 + 1 how many times would it go into the candidate number? Less than 2 (i.e. 1) which means the divisor is the candidate number itself. The logic for only going up to sqrt(n) is that if a number has any factors then at least one of them must be bigger than sqrt(n). Think about trying to factorise n as x*y where both x and y are less than sqrt(n). Say you were testing the number 12, you would never get as far as finding that 6 or 4 were factors but that doesn't matter becuase you would have found 2 (12/6) and 3 (12/4) before getting up to the square root. Worst case would be a number that is the square of a prime e.g. 25 where you won't find any factors until you reach the square root.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.