n=int(input("Enter a number"))
for num in range(2,n+1):
for i in range(2,num):
if(num%i==0):
break
else:
print(num,end="")
Here is the dry run-:
https://imgur.com/a/8cyBulI
Everything is fine except for 2 where I am not getting 2 as output. What has gone wrong here? I don't understand what is gone wrong here?
2 mod 2 is 0, so your loop breaks.
Instead of checking if your number is divisible by every integer up to the number, try checking it only against the array of primes you have already found - this should be more efficient, and also give the output you are looking for :-)
EDIT:
Here is some code I wrote in JavaScript as an example of my suggestion:
let n = 5
let foundPrimes = []
for (let num = 2; num <= n; num++){
let divisible = false
for (let prime of foundPrimes){
if (num%prime == 0) {
divisible = true
break;
}
}
if (!divisible) {
foundPrimes.push(num)
}
}
console.log(foundPrimes)
Related
This is a homework. OCaml seems to be made by a psychopath.
let prime : int -> bool
= fun n ->
if n > 2 then
let a = n - 1 in
let rec divisor n a =
if a > 1 && n mod a = 0 then false
else if a = 2 && n mod a <> 0 then true
else divisor n a-1 ;;
else if n = 2 then true
else if n = 1 then false
I am not good at coding and I know that my isPrime algorithm is wrong.
But I wonder where in my code is the mistake that produces the syntax error.
Also is there any way to define the isPrime function in a recursive form?
Example:
let rec prime n = ~
You'll get better responses from experts if you don't gratuitously insult their language :-) But I'm an easygoing guy, so I'll take a stab at your syntax error.
There are quite a few problems in this code. Here are 3 that I see right off:
The symbol ;; is used to tell the interpreter that you've entered a full expression that you want it to evaluate. It's definitely out of place in the middle of a function declaration.
Your second let doesn't have an associated in. Every let must have an in after it. The only exception is for defining values at the top level of a module (like your prime function).
The expression divisor n a-1 is parsed as (divisor n a) - 1. You want parentheses like this: divisor a (n - 1).
import math
def is_prime(num):
if num < 2:
return False
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1):
if num % i == 0:
return False
return True
Primes seems to be a popular topic but in the book in which I am learning Python, I am on chpt 6 out of 21 and in the iteration chapter which it teaches while loops. I have not learned for loops yet although I understand what they do. So, let's say I have not learned for loops yet and am given only if/elif/else statements and the while loops as my tools. How can I change the for line of code into something more simple using the above tools? While asking this question I quickly came up with this code:
def formula(num):
i = 2
while i >= 2:
return int(math.sqrt(num)+ 1)
def is_primetwo(num):
i = 2
if num < 2:
return False
formula(num)
if num % i == 0:
return False
return True
It works but would this be a simple version of the for loop or is there something even more simple where I do not have to wrap a function within a function?
Absolutely, you do not need a function to replace a for loop.
So you've got this
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1):
which is your for loop. Take a second to think what it's doing.
1.) It's taking the variable i, and it's starting it at a value of 2.
2.) It's checking whether to do the loop every time by checking if i is less than the (square root of num) plus 1
3.) Every time through the loop, it adds one to i.
We can do all of these things using a while loop.
Here's the original
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1):
if num % i == 0:
return False
let's rename the second and third lines loop contents just so we're focusing on the looping part, not what logic we're doing with the variables i and num.
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1):
loop contents
ok, now let's just rearrange it to be a while loop. We need to set i to 2 first.
i = 2
Now we want to check that i is in the range we want
i = 2
while i <= int(math.sqrt(num) + 1):
loop contents
Now we're almost set, we just need to make i actually change, instead of staying at a value of 2 forever.
i = 2
while i <= int(math.sqrt(num) + 1):
loop contents
i = i + 1
Your example seemed to do some of these elements, but this way is a simple way to do it, and no extra function is necessary. It could be the range() function that is confusing. Just remember, the for loop is doing three things; setting a variable to an initial value, checking a condition (one variable is less than another), and incrementing your variable to be one large than previously to run the loop again.
How about something like:
from math import sqrt
def is_prime(num):
if (num < 2):
return False
i = 2
limit = int(sqrt(num) + 1)
while (i <= limit):
if num % i == 0:
return False
i = i + 1
return True
Not sure if this is what you want, but the for loop:
for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1):
if num % i == 0:
return False
return True
can be expressed as:
i = 2
while i < int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1):
if num % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
Probably a good idea to determine int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1) once:
i = 2
n = int(math.sqrt(num))+ 1)
while i < n:
if num % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
I'm going back and tooling around with Project Euler questions to see if I can speed up my code, this is 003: finding the max prime factor of a really big number.
def is_prime(n):
'''check if n is prime'''
if n == 1: return 0
elif n == 2: return 1
elif n % 2 == 0: return 0
for i in range(3, int(n**0.5) +1, 2):
if n % i == 0:
return 0
else:
return 1
factor_list = []
the_number = 600851475143
for i in range(3, int(the_number**0.5) +1, 2):
if the_number % i == 0: factor_list.append(i)
print factor_list
for i in factor_list:
if is_prime(i) == False: factor_list.remove(i)
print factor_list
print max(factor_list)
The first print call prints: [71, 839, 1471, 6857, 59569, 104441, 486847]
So far, so good, printing the pre-n^0.5 factors of n.
The second print call prints: [71, 839, 1471, 6857, 104441]
Wait, how did 104441 slip through the is_prime function?
The third print call prints the incorrect answer, namely 104441. My question is how is 104441 slipping through?
I believe you have an issue with your for loop. When you use a for-each loop, you usually don't want to remove values because it ends up skipping over some. So I think what is happening is that 59569 gets removed, and then because you remove it, your next i value is 486847.
If you want a working solution, refer to steveha's code.
It's always tricky to try to modify a list while looping over it. It's better and safer to just build the list you need, rather than trying to pull out values you don't need.
This code works perfectly:
factor_list = [n for n in xrange(3, int(the_number**0.5) +1, 2) if the_number % n == 0]
print(factor_list)
prime_factors = [n for n in factor_list if is_prime(n)]
print(prime_factors)
answer = max(prime_factors)
print(answer)
Also, you should be returning False and True from is_prime(), not 0 and 1.
gooday programers. I have to design a C++ program that reads a sequence of positive integer values that ends with zero and find the length of the longest increasing subsequence in the given sequence. For example, for the following
sequence of integer numbers:
1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 1 2 5 6 8 9 1 2 3 0
the program should return 6
i have written my code which seems correct but for some reason is always returning zero, could someone please help me with this problem.
Here is my code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int x = 1; // note x is initialised as one so it can enter the while loop
int y = 0;
int n = 0;
while (x != 0) // users can enter a zero at end of input to say they have entered all their numbers
{
cout << "Enter sequence of numbers(0 to end): ";
cin >> x;
if (x == (y + 1)) // <<<<< i think for some reason this if statement if never happening
{
n = n + 1;
y = x;
}
else
{
n = 0;
}
}
cout << "longest sequence is: " << n << endl;
return 0;
}
In your program, you have made some assumptions, you need to validate them first.
That the subsequence always starts at 1
That the subsequence always increments by 1
If those are correct assumptions, then here are some tweaks
Move the cout outside of the loop
The canonical way in C++ of testing whether an input operation from a stream has worked, is simply test the stream in operation, i.e. if (cin >> x) {...}
Given the above, you can re-write your while loop to read in x and test that x != 0
If both above conditions hold, enter the loop
Now given the above assumptions, your first check is correct, however in the event the check fails, remember that the new subsequence starts at the current input number (value x), so there is no sense is setting n to 0.
Either way, y must always be current value of x.
If you make the above logic changes to your code, it should work.
In the last loop, your n=0 is execute before x != 0 is check, so it'll always return n = 0. This should work.
if(x == 0) {
break;
} else if (x > y ) {
...
} else {
...
}
You also need to reset your y variable when you come to the end of a sequence.
If you just want a list of increasing numbers, then your "if" condition is only testing that x is equal to one more than y. Change the condition to:
if (x > y) {
and you should have more luck.
You always return 0, because the last number that you read and process is 0 and, of course, never make x == (y + 1) comes true, so the last statement that its always executed before exiting the loop its n=0
Hope helps!
this is wrong logically:
if (x == (y + 1)) // <<<<< i think for some reason this if statement if never happening
{
Should be
if(x >= (y+1))
{
I think that there are more than one problem, the first and most important that you might have not understood the problem correctly. By the common definition of longest increasing subsequence, the result to that input would not be 6 but rather 8.
The problem is much more complex than the simple loop you are trying to implement and it is usually tackled with Dynamic Programming techniques.
On your particular code, you are trying to count in the if the length of the sequence for which each element is exactly the successor of the last read element. But if the next element is not in the sequence you reset the length to 0 (else { n = 0; }), which is what is giving your result. You should be keeping a max value that never gets reset back to 0, something like adding in the if block: max = std::max( max, n ); (or in pure C: max = (n > max? n : max );. Then the result will be that max value.
Assume the availability of a function is_prime. Assume a variable n has been associated with a positive integer. Write the statements needed to compute the sum of the first n prime numbers. The sum should be associated with the variable total.
Note: is_prime takes an integer as a parameter and returns True if and only if that integer is prime.
Well, I wrote is_prime function like this:
def is_prime(n):
n = abs(n)
i = 2
while i < n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
but it works except for n==0. How can I fix it to make it work for every integer?
I'm trying to find out answers for both how to write function to get the sum of first n prime numbers and how to modify my is_prime function, which should work for all possible input, not only positive numbers.
Your assignment is as follows.
Assume the availability of a function is_prime. Assume a variable n has been associated with a positive integer. Write the statements needed to compute the sum of the first n prime numbers. The sum should be associated with the variable total.
As NVRAM rightly points out in the comments (and nobody else appears to have picked up on), the question states "assume the availability of a function is_prime".
You don't have to write that function. What you do have to do is "write the statements needed to compute the sum of the first n prime numbers".
The pseudocode for that would be something like:
primes_left = n
curr_num = 2
curr_sum = 0
while primes_left > 0:
if is_prime(curr_num):
curr_sum = curr_sum + curr_num
primes_left = primes_left - 1
curr_num = curr_num + 1
print "Sum of first " + n + " primes is " + curr_sum
I think you'll find that, if you just implement that pseudocode in your language of choice, that'll be all you have to do.
If you are looking for an implementation of is_prime to test your assignment with, it doesn't really matter how efficient it is, since you'll only be testing a few small values anyway. You also don't have to worry about numbers less than two, given the constraints of the code that will be using it. Something like this is perfectly acceptable:
def is_prime(num):
if num < 2:
return false
if num == 2:
return true
divisor = 2
while divisor * divisor <= num:
if num % divisor == 0:
return false
divisor = divisor + 1
return true
In your problem statement it says that n is a positive integer. So assert(n>0) and ensure that your program outer-loop will never is_prime() with a negative value nor zero.
Your algorithm - trial division of every successive odd number (the 'odd' would be a major speed-up for you) - works, but is going to be very slow. Look at the prime sieve for inspiration.
Well, what happens when n is 0 or 1?
You have
i = 2
while i < n: #is 2 less than 0 (or 1?)
...
return True
If you want n of 0 or 1 to return False, then doesn't this suggest that you need to modify your conditional (or function itself) to account for these cases?
Why not just hardcode an answer for i = 0 or 1?
n = abs(n)
i = 2
if(n == 0 || n == 1)
return true //Or whatever you feel 0 or 1 should return.
while i < n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
And you could further improve the speed of your algorithm by omitting some numbers. This script only checks up to the square root of n as no composite number has factors greater than its square root if a number has one or more factors, one will be encountered before the square root of that number. When testing large numbers, this makes a pretty big difference.
n = abs(n)
i = 2
if(n == 0 || n == 1)
return true //Or whatever you feel 0 or 1 should return.
while i <= sqrt(n):
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True
try this:
if(n==0)
return true
else
n = abs(n)
i = 2
while i < n:
if n % i == 0:
return False
i += 1
return True