A stab at Twin Primes, Pour on the Steak Sauce

[ONeil]

Warning: if you wish to be a prime number theorist, then you
have to realize, as the integers grow the prime gaps increase too! So
predicting prime numbers is near impossible at the very large scale! So for
most prime number formulas, this one works best at the lower scale. User
beware. You must enter a Prime to find the twin prime!

I built this twin prime finder for speed so enjoy it kicks ass for speed I mean just check the times and you will scratch your head. Now if you must find your twin prime then input its twin ok on the lower end! It will find the higher integer Twin Prime guaranteed. Also for you seekers out there I built in a modular search for this code and when all zeros come up, check the prime window for at least a prime. For Huge prime who can guarantee it, I'm just saying

print('''Warning: if you wish to be a prime number theorist, then you
have to realize, as the integers grow the prime gaps increase too!  So
predicting prime numbers is near impossible at the very large scale!  So for
most prime number formulas, this one works best at the lower scale.  User
beware.  You must enter a Prime to find the twin prime!''')
import time
start_time = time.time()

while True:
	n = int(input("Enter a prime number: "))
	if n % 2 != 0:
		t = (((2*n)//2)) + ((3*(n+2)//3))
		ttl = (((2*n)//2)) + ((3*(n+2)//3)) + (((2*n+3))) - ((3*(n+2)//3))
		
		ta = (((2*n)//2))
		tb = ((3*(n+2)//3))
		print('____________')
		print(ttl%6,'When all Zero likely twin primes or one prime')
		
		print(t%3)
		print(t%8)
		print('____________')
		print(ta,tb,"Prime numbers show here")
		
		
		e = int(time.time() - start_time)
		print('{:02d}:{:02d}:{:02d}'.format(e // 3600, (e % 3600 // 60), e % 60))

[retina]

It might be fast, but it is wrong.

There is no sense in driving at lightning speed when you are driving in the wrong direction.

[ONeil]

Originally Posted by retina

It might be fast, but it is wrong.

There is no sense in driving at lightning speed when you are driving in the wrong direction.

it works for me show me the error I'm picking off many twin primes

[ONeil]

Originally Posted by retina

It might be fast, but it is wrong.

There is no sense in driving at lightning speed when you are driving in the wrong direction.

t = (((2*n)//2)) + ((3*(n+2)//3))

Are you suggesting I should just do this retina?

t = (( n ) + (n+2))

[ONeil]

Originally Posted by retina

It might be fast, but it is wrong.

There is no sense in driving at lightning speed when you are driving in the wrong direction.

Your wrong, and here is why the modular arithmetic is great for prediction and helps when its all zero so the approach is to to check when all is zero or 2 zero's and the last is a 4.

[Viliam Furik]

Originally Posted by ONeil

Your wrong, and here is why the modular arithmetic is great for prediction and helps when its all zero so the approach is to to check when all is zero or 2 zero's and the last is a 4.

retina was saying, that no matter how fast you make your code, it's not useful, at all...

If you have to put in the smaller of the two KNOWN twin primes, the only purpose of that code is to print out p+2. Anything more is unnecessary, as is anything less -> If you know it's the smaller twin, why even bother printing out p+2??

[mathwiz]

What's the point of this code?

If you know prime, it just computes ? (in which case... why not just add 2)?

Or is it that you know prime, and it computes *and* tests it for primality? (in which case, why not just use any of the existing primality testing algorithms, which are actually correct?)

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by ONeil

<snip>

<snip>
		ta = (((2*n)//2))
		tb = ((3*(n+2)//3))
<snip>

KIRK: Mister Spock, is this ship headed for Ariannus?

SPOCK: Negative, Captain. The Enterprise is now moving in a circular course.

SCOTT: And at warp ten, we're going nowhere mighty fast.

-- STAR TREK, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"

[swishzzz]

print('''Warning: if you wish to be a prime number theorist, then you
have to realize, as the integers grow the prime gaps increase too!  So
predicting prime numbers is near impossible at the very large scale!  So for
most prime number formulas, this one works best at the lower scale.  User
beware.  You must enter a Prime to find the twin prime!''')
import time
start_time = time.time()

while True:
	n = int(input("Enter a prime number: "))
	if n % 2 != 0:
		t = (((2*n)//2)) + ((3*(n+2)//3))
		ttl = (((2*n)//2)) + ((3*(n+2)//3)) + (((2*n+3))) - ((3*(n+2)//3))
		
		ta = (((2*n)//2))
		tb = ((3*(n+2)//3))
		print('____________')
		print(ttl%6,'When all Zero likely twin primes or one prime')
		
		print(t%3)
		print(t%8)
		print('____________')
		print(ta,tb,"Prime numbers show here")
		
		
		e = int(time.time() - start_time)
		print('{:02d}:{:02d}:{:02d}'.format(e // 3600, (e % 3600 // 60), e % 60))

As a python developer the formatting here drives me nuts. Disregarding the content of the actual code itself, please

• Use 4 spaces per indent level
• Remove the unnecessary bracketing. You should know that * and / have precedence over + and -.
• Put spaces after operators and commas
• Be consistent in your use of '' and "" quotes
• Put your imports at the very top of the code

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by swishzzz

<snip>
Disregarding the content of the actual code itself,
<snip>

Good move. If you look too hard for any content, you'll hurt your eyes.

<snip>

• Remove the unnecessary bracketing. You should know that * and / have precedence over + and -.
  <snip>

Being unfamiliar with Python, I had to look up // (it's "floor divide"), and has the same priority as * and /. Thus, apparently in spite of the OP's best efforts, this thread has served a constructive purpose. I've learned something!

If there is any reason for the unnecessary bracketing other than making the code harder to read, I am suffering a failure of imagination as to what it could be.

Just out of curiosity, is there a generic term for calculations specifically designed not to do anything?

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Just out of curiosity, is there a generic term for calculations specifically designed not to do anything?

Yes, they are speed-up computations.

So whenever someone says it isn't fast enough, then you just remove one of them and now it is faster. It's pure genius!