Quantcast

A community for students. Sign up today!

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

michalmichalski

  • 3 years ago

Hi all, Im new to programming and just finished assignment 1.1 (which I think is correct). Could someone tell me if there's room for improvement or what could be done better. thanks heres the code: http://codepad.org/45TEO6yE (it only runs the first 20 primes to save time)

  • This Question is Closed
  1. duikboot
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    I think it's very nice, but, maybe you could change n%x == 0 to n % x == 0 which improves readability. It's part of the python style guide: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/

  2. bwCA
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    it works great, it will find primes less than 10000. If your search criteria was different or changing you would have to guess what the limit would be in line 2, or know the answer b4 hand. could you rewrite it to find just the 2000th prime? without having to guess how big that number is?

  3. duikboot
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    Something like this? http://codepad.org/J67EOiDK

  4. Tomas.A
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    you find only prime which is highest in up to 2000 but not 2000th prime

  5. duikboot
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @Tomas.A ah, I misread the question.

  6. michalmichalski
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    cool. thanks all!

  7. carlsmith
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    I liked this line. for n in range(3, 10000, 2): Using the optional, third arg like that saved you filtering out all the evens afterwards. It was clever to spot that.

  8. Tomas.A
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @michalmichalski did you manage to write program like @bwCa said?

  9. erthbound0
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    question guys...for this formula, line of for X in range (3,n), i made it: for x in range(3, int(sqrt(n))+1: is this a faster way to run the program

  10. strobe
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    My recommendation would be to try and make this program more useful. Try and make it into a function that has input n and output of the nth prime.

  11. bwCA
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    ... yep you only really have to check up to the square root - but that's just an optimization

  12. michalmichalski
    • 3 years ago
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 0

    @ Tomas, no I didnt write it yet - but I ll give it a try. @ earthbound() - good suggestion with the sqrt, thnks thanks for yr comments!

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

    • Attachments:

Ask your own question

Ask a Question
Find more explanations on OpenStudy

Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.

spraguer (Moderator)
5 → View Detailed Profile

is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...

23

  • Teamwork 19 Teammate
  • Problem Solving 19 Hero
  • You have blocked this person.
  • ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...

Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.