Re: A different take on finding primes

2009-11-18 Thread Nigel Rowe
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:21, Tobiah wrote in comp.lang.python <>: > >>> Let me >>> be clear, given 2min, how many primes can you find, they need not be in >>> order or consecutive. > > Do they have to go from low to high? :( ) 1) google list of prime numbers 2) see "Prime numbers list" in the r

Re: A different take on finding primes

2009-11-18 Thread Anh Hai Trinh
> 1) google list of prime numbers > 2) see "Prime numbers list" in the results (number 3 in the results) > 3) click link that leads towww.prime-numbers.org > > I found 455042511 prime numbers in approx 15 seconds. Not bad at all. How about using http://www.sagemath.org/ (written in Python). s

Re: A different take on finding primes

2009-11-17 Thread Tobiah
>> Let me >> be clear, given 2min, how many primes can you find, they need not be in >> order or consecutive. Do they have to go from low to high? :( ) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: A different take on finding primes

2009-11-14 Thread Dave Angel
Vincent Davis wrote: Out of pure curiosity I would like to compare the efficiency of different methods of finding primes (need not be consecutive). Let me be clear, given 2min, how many primes can you find, they need not be in order or consecutive. I have not seen any examples of this. I am assum