Mel <mwil...@the-wire.com> wrote: > >It certainly can be done faster. I ran it against the factor finder that I >wrote, and it popped up the answer > >mwilson@tecumseth:~$ bin/factors.py 600851475143 >71 839 1471 ... > >before I could glance at my watch. factors.py works, as does yours, by >testing for small factors first, but it divides them out as it goes, so it >tends to do its work on smallish numbers. And since the smallest factors >are taken out as soon as possible, they have to be the prime ones.
That's a great hint, and I'm not sure it would have occurred to me on my own. Using your hint, I was able to write a 16-line script that also produced a result instantaneously. Very satisfying. I'm going to save that one... -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
