For reference, there's a pretty significant speed difference between the various stated solutions. Here is some comparison code. The solution pointed to by Lennart is called "historic", the one proposed by Ants is called "naive", and the one by RC is called "regexp."
from sys import argv
from time import time
def prime(i, primes):
for prime in primes:
if not (i == prime or i % prime):
return False
primes.add(i)
return i
def historic(n):
primes = set([2])
i, p = 2, 0
while True:
if prime(i, primes):
p += 1
if p == n:
return primes
i += 1
def naive(n):
from itertools import count, islice
primes = (n for n in count(2) if all(n % d for d in range(2, n)))
return islice(primes, 0, n)
def isPrime(n):
import re
# see http://tinyurl.com/3dbhjv
return re.match(r'^1?$|^(11+?)\1+$', '1' * n) == None
def regexp(n):
import sys
N = int(sys.argv[1]) # number of primes wanted (from command-line)
M = 100 # upper-bound of search space
l = list() # result list
while len(l) < N:
l += filter(isPrime, range(M - 100, M)) # append prime element of [M - 100, M] to l
M += 100 # increment upper-bound
return l[:N] # print result list limited to N elements
def dotime(func, n):
print func.__name__
start = time()
print sorted(list(func(n)))
print 'Time in seconds: ' + str(time() - start)
if __name__ == "__main__":
for func in naive, historic, regexp:
dotime(func, int(argv[1]))
The output of this on my machine for n = 100 is:
naive
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541]
Time in seconds: 0.0219371318817
historic
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541]
Time in seconds: 0.00515413284302
regexp
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163, 167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251, 257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349, 353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443, 449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 541]
Time in seconds: 0.0733318328857
As you can see, there's a pretty big discrepancy. Here it is again for 1000 (prime outputs removed):
naive
Time in seconds: 1.49018788338
historic
Time in seconds: 0.148319005966
regexp
Time in seconds: 29.2350409031