Hello Martin,
You can use gmpy (http://gmpy.sourceforge.net/)
def primes():
n = 2
while 1:
yield long(n)
n = gmpy.next_prime(n)
HTH,
Miki
http://pythonwise.blogspot.com/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gregory Petrosyan wrote:
> # Paul Rubin's version
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ python -mtimeit "import test2" "test2.primes(1000)"
> 100 loops, best of 3: 14.3 msec per loop
>
> # version from the Cookbook
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ python -mtimeit "import test1" "test1.primes(1000)"
> 1000 loops, best of 3
On 27/05/2006 6:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have tried this comparison, with a version I've modified a bit, I
> have encoutered a problem in sieve_all, for example with n=1, I
> don't know why:
It might have been better use of bandwidth to give details of the
problem instead of all th
I have tried this comparison, with a version I've modified a bit, I
have encoutered a problem in sieve_all, for example with n=1, I
don't know why:
def sieve_all(n=100):
# yield all primes up to n
stream = iter(xrange(2, n))
while True:
p = stream.next()
yield p
On 26/05/2006 11:25 PM, Frank Millman wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> If you are interested in such programs, you can take a look at this one
>> too:
>> http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/366178
>>
>> It requires more memory, but it's quite fast.
>>
>> Bye,
>> bearophile
>
# Paul Rubin's version
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ python -mtimeit "import test2" "test2.primes(1000)"
100 loops, best of 3: 14.3 msec per loop
# version from the Cookbook
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ python -mtimeit "import test1" "test1.primes(1000)"
1000 loops, best of 3: 528 usec per loop
--
http://mail.py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you are interested in such programs, you can take a look at this one
> too:
> http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/366178
>
> It requires more memory, but it's quite fast.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile
I compared the speed of this one (A) with the speed of
If you are interested in such programs, you can take a look at this one
too:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/366178
It requires more memory, but it's quite fast.
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm creating a program to calculate all primes numbers in a range of 0
> to n, where n is whatever the user wants it to be. I've worked out the
> algorithm and it works perfectly and is pretty fast, but the one thing
> seriously slowing down the program is the following c
I got it working using difference() and sets, thanks all! 100,000 takes
about 3 times the time of 10,000, which is what my math buddies told me
I should be getting, rather than an exponential increase :). Thanks,
all!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does anybody know a faster way to do this? (finding the difference all
> items in list a that are not in list b)?
>>> a = [3, 7, 16, 1, 2, 19, 13, 4, 0, 8]# random.sample(range(20),10)
>>> b = [15, 11, 7, 2, 0, 3, 9, 1, 12, 16] # similar
>>> sorted(set
> def rmlist(original, deletions):
>return [i for i in original if i not in deletions]
>
> original will be a list of odd numbers and deletions will be numbers
> that are not prime, thus this code will return all items in original
> that are not in deletions. For n > 100,000 or so, the program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm creating a program to calculate all primes numbers in a range of 0
> to n, where n is whatever the user wants it to be. I've worked out the
> algorithm and it works perfectly and is pretty fast, but the one thing
> seriously slowing down the program is the following c
I'm creating a program to calculate all primes numbers in a range of 0
to n, where n is whatever the user wants it to be. I've worked out the
algorithm and it works perfectly and is pretty fast, but the one thing
seriously slowing down the program is the following code:
def rmlist(original, deleti
14 matches
Mail list logo
