I have this bit of code:
let rec h n z = if n = 0 then z
else <# (fun x -> %(h (n - 1) <# x + %z #>)) n #>
converted from a MetaOcaml example in http://www.cs.rice.edu/~taha/publications/journal/dspg04a.pdf
In the paper there is explained that the above example will yield the following with the parameters 3 and .<1>. (in MetaOcaml notation):
.<(fun x_1 -> (fun x_2 -> (fun x_3 -> x_3 + (x_2 + (x_1 + 1))) 1) 2) 3>.
As you can see the x´s gets replaced by x_1, x_2 etc. because the x would otherwise only refer to the x in the innermost fun.
But in F# this isn't allowed. I get the compile-time error: "The variable 'x' is bound in a quotation but is used as part of a spliced expression. This is not permitted since it may escape its scope." So the question is: how can this be changed so it will compile and have the same semantic as the MetaOcaml output?
Update to comment: I use the PowerPack to actually evaluating the quotation. But I don't think this have anything to do with it because the error is at compile-time. So far QuotationEvaluation works. However, I do know it may not be the most efficient implementation.
Update to Tomas´ answer:
I really don't want the x to be global, or to escape scope. But I want is the equivalent to
let rec h n z = if n = 0 then z
else (fun x -> (h (n - 1) (x + z))) n
with quotations. Your answer gives (h 3 <# 1 #>).Eval() = 4 where the above yields h 3 1 = 7. And here, I want 7 to be the answer.
F# quotation syntax doesn't support variables that could potentially escape the scope, so you'll need to construct the tree explicitly using the Expr operations. Something like this should do the trick:
open Microsoft.FSharp.Quotations
let rec h n (z:Expr<int>) =
if n = 0 then z
else
let v = new Var("x", typeof<int>)
let ve = Expr.Var(v)
Expr.Cast<int>
(Expr.Application( Expr.Lambda(v, h (n - 1) <# %%ve + %z #>),
Expr.Value(n)))
However, this is quite artificial example (to demonstrate variable capturing in MetaOCaml, which isn't available in F#). It just generates expression like (2 + (1 + ...)). You can get the same result by writing something like this:
let rec h n (z:Expr<int>) =
if n = 0 then z
else h (n - 1) <# n + %z #>
Or even better:
[ 1 .. 4 ] |> List.fold (fun st n -> <# n + %st #>) <# 0 #>
I also came accross this limitation in F# quotations and it would be nice if this was supported. However, I don't think it is such a big problem in practice, because F# quotations are not used for staged meta-programming. They are more useful for analyzing existing F# code than for generating code.
Related
I found the following piece of code in the fantomas library for F#. I am having a hard time understanding this as an F# noob. From what I understand, it's a custom operator that takes 3 arguments, but why would an operator need 3 arguments? And what exactly is happening here?
/// Function composition operator
let internal (+>) (ctx: Context -> Context) (f: _ -> Context) x =
let y = ctx x
match y.WriterModel.Mode with
| ShortExpression infos when
infos
|> Seq.exists (fun x -> x.ConfirmedMultiline)
->
y
| _ -> f y
Here's an example of how fantomas uses this operator in ther CodePrinter module.
let short =
genExpr astContext e1
+> sepSpace
+> genInfixOperator "=" operatorExpr
+> sepSpace
+> genExpr astContext e2
Operators behave a lot like function names:
let (++) a b c d =
a + b + c + d
(++) 1 2 3 4
One difference is that operators can be used infix. An operator with more than 2 arguments allows infix only for the first 2 arguments:
// the following is equal:
let f = (++) 1 2 // like a function name
let f = 1 ++ 2 // with infix
f 50 60
I did not find how fantomas uses the operator you mention, would be curious, in particular since fantomas is a high profile f# project.
It might be instructive to compare this to the regular function composition operator, >>. The definition for this is:
let (>>) (f : a' -> b') (g : b' -> c') (x : a') =
g ( f x )
Esentially, it applies f to x, and then applies g to the result.
If we have the following functions:
let plusOne i = i + 1
let timesTwo j = j * 2
And apply it the following way:
let plusOneTimesTwo = plusOne >> timesTwo
What we're really doing is something like this:
let plusOneTimesTwo = (>>) plusOne timesTwo
When you don't supply all of the necessary arguments to a function (in this case, x), what you get is a function that takes the remaining arguments and then returns what the original function would return (this is partial application.) In this case, plusOneTimesTwo's function signature is now x : int -> int.
The example you've listed is essentially the same thing, but it's performing additional logic to determine whether it wants to apply the second function to the result y or to return it as-is.
I am currently experimenting with F#. The articles found on the internet are helpful, but as a C# programmer, I sometimes run into situations where I thought my solution would help, but it did not or just partially helped.
So my lack of knowledge of F# (and most likely, how the compiler works) is probably the reason why I am totally flabbergasted sometimes.
For example, I wrote a C# program to determine perfect numbers. It uses the known form of Euclids proof, that a perfect number can be formed from a Mersenne Prime 2p−1(2p−1) (where 2p-1 is a prime, and p is denoted as the power of).
Since the help of F# states that '**' can be used to calculate a power, but uses floating points, I tried to create a simple function with a bitshift operator (<<<) (note that I've edit this code for pointing out the need):
let PowBitShift (y:int32) = 1 <<< y;;
However, when running a test, and looking for performance improvements, I also tried a form which I remember from using Miranda (a functional programming language also), which uses recursion and a pattern matcher to calculate the power. The main benefit is that I can use the variable y as a 64-bit Integer, which is not possible with the standard bitshift operator.
let rec Pow (x : int64) (y : int64) =
match y with
| 0L -> 1L
| y -> x * Pow x (y - 1L);;
It turns out that this function is actually faster, but I cannot (yet) understand the reason why. Perhaps it is a less intellectual question, but I am still curious.
The seconds question then would be, that when calculating perfect numbers, you run into the fact that the int64 cannot display the big numbers crossing after finding the 9th perfectnumber (which is formed from the power of 31). I am trying to find out if you can use the BigInteger object (or bigint type) then, but here my knowledge of F# is blocking me a bit. Is it possible to create a powerfunction which accepts both arguments to be bigints?
I currently have this:
let rec PowBigInt (x : bigint) (y : bigint) =
match y with
| bigint.Zero -> 1I
| y -> x * Pow x (y - 1I);;
But it throws an error that bigint.Zero is not defined. So I am doing something wrong there as well. 0I is not accepted as a replacement, since it gives this error:
Non-primitive numeric literal constants cannot be used in pattern matches because they
can be mapped to multiple different types through the use of a NumericLiteral module.
Consider using replacing with a variable, and use 'when <variable> = <constant>' at the
end of the match clause.
But a pattern matcher cannot use a 'when' statement. Is there another solution to do this?
Thanks in advance, and please forgive my long post. I am only trying to express my 'challenges' as clear as I can.
I failed to understand why you need y to be an int64 or a bigint. According to this link, the biggest known Mersenne number is the one with p = 43112609, where p is indeed inside the range of int.
Having y as an integer, you can use the standard operator pown : ^T -> int -> ^T instead because:
let Pow (x : int64) y = pown x y
let PowBigInt (x: bigint) y = pown x y
Regarding your question of pattern matching bigint, the error message indicates quite clearly that you can use pattern matching via when guards:
let rec PowBigInt x y =
match y with
| _ when y = 0I -> 1I
| _ -> x * PowBigInt x (y - 1I)
I think the easiest way to define PowBigInt is to use if instead of pattern matching:
let rec PowBigInt (x : bigint) (y : bigint) =
if y = 0I then 1I
else x * PowBigInt x (y - 1I)
The problem is that bigint.Zero is a static property that returns the value, but patterns can only contain (constant) literals or F# active patterns. They can't directly contain property (or other) calls. However, you can write additional constraints in where clause if you still prefer match:
let rec PowBigInt (x : bigint) (y : bigint) =
match y with
| y when y = bigint.Zero -> 1I
| y -> x * PowBigInt x (y - 1I)
As a side-note, you can probably make the function more efficent using tail-recursion (the idea is that if a function makes recursive call as the last thing, then it can be compiled more efficiently):
let PowBigInt (x : bigint) (y : bigint) =
// Recursive helper function that stores the result calculated so far
// in 'acc' and recursively loops until 'y = 0I'
let rec PowBigIntHelper (y : bigint) (acc : bigint) =
if y = 0I then acc
else PowBigIntHelper (y - 1I) (x * acc)
// Start with the given value of 'y' and '1I' as the result so far
PowBigIntHelper y 1I
Regarding the PowBitShift function - I'm not sure why it is slower, but it definitely doesn't do what you need. Using bit shifting to implement power only works when the base is 2.
You don't need to create the Pow function.
The (**) operator has an overload for bigint -> int -> bigint.
Only the second parameter should be an integer, but I don't think that's a problem for your case.
Just try
bigint 10 ** 32 ;;
val it : System.Numerics.BigInteger =
100000000000000000000000000000000 {IsEven = true;
IsOne = false;
IsPowerOfTwo = false;
IsZero = false;
Sign = 1;}
Another option is to inline your function so it works with all numeric types (that support the required operators: (*), (-), get_One, and get_Zero).
let rec inline PowBigInt (x:^a) (y:^a) : ^a =
let zero = LanguagePrimitives.GenericZero
let one = LanguagePrimitives.GenericOne
if y = zero then one
else x * PowBigInt x (y - one)
let x = PowBigInt 10 32 //int
let y = PowBigInt 10I 32I //bigint
let z = PowBigInt 10.0 32.0 //float
I'd probably recommend making it tail-recursive, as Tomas suggested.
I have this code written for a Project Euler problem in c++:
int sum = 0;
for(int i =0; i < 1000; i++)
{
//Check if multiple of 3 but not multiple of 5 to prevent duplicate
sum += i % 3 == 0 && i % 5 != 0 ? i: 0;
//check for all multiple of 5, including those of 3
sum += i % 5 == 0 ? i: 0;
}
cout << sum;
I'm trying to learn f# and rewriting this in f#. This is what I have so far:
open System
//function to calculate the multiples
let multiple3v5 num =
num
//function to calculate sum of list items
let rec SumList xs =
match xs with
| [] -> 0
| y::ys -> y + SumList ys
let sum = Array.map multiple3v5 [|1 .. 1000|]
What I have may be complete nonsense...so help please?
Your sumList function is a good start. It already iterates (recursively) over the entire list, so you don't need to wrap it in an additional Array.map. You just need to extend your sumList so that it adds the number only when it matches the specified condition.
Here is a solution to a simplified problem - add all numbers that are divisible by 3:
open System
let rec sumList xs =
match xs with
| [] -> 0 // If the list is empty, the sum is zero
| y::ys when y % 3 = 0 ->
// If the list starts with y that is divisible by 3, then we add 'y' to the
// sum that we get by recursively processing the rest of the list
y + sumList ys
| y::ys ->
// This will only execute when y is not divisible by 3, so we just
// recursively process the rest of the list and return
/// that (without adding current value)
sumList ys
// For testing, let's sum all numbers divisble by 3 between 1 and 10.
let sum = sumList [ 1 .. 10 ]
This is the basic way of writing the function using explicit recursion. In practice, the solution by jpalmer is how I'd solve it too, but it is useful to write a few recursive functions yourself if you're learning F#.
The accumulator parameter mentioned by sashang is a more advanced way to write this. You'll need to do that if you want to run the function on large inputs (which is likely the case in Euler problem). When using accumulator parameter, the function can be written using tail recursion, so it avoids stack overflow even when processing long lists.
The idea of a accumulator-based version is that the function takes additional parameter, which represents the sum calculated so far.
let rec sumList xs sumSoFar = ...
When you call it initially, you write sumList [ ... ] 0. The recursive calls will not call y + sumList xs, but will instead add y to the accumulator and then make the recursive call sumList xs (y + sumSoFar). This way, the F# compiler can do tail-call optimization and it will translate code to a loop (similar to the C++ version).
I'm not sure if translating from an imperative language solution is a good approach to developing a functional mindset as instrument (C++ in your case) had already defined an (imperative) approach to solution, so it's better sticking to original problem outlay.
Overall tasks from Project Euler are excellent for mastering many F# facilities. For example, you may use list comprehensions like in the snippet below
// multipleOf3Or5 function definition is left for your exercise
let sumOfMultiples n =
[ for x in 1 .. n do if multipleOf3Or5 x then yield x] |> List.sum
sumOfMultiples 999
or you can a bit generalize the solution suggested by #jpalmer by exploiting laziness:
Seq.initInfinite id
|> Seq.filter multipleOf3Or5
|> Seq.takeWhile ((>) 1000)
|> Seq.sum
or you may even use this opportunity to master active patterns:
let (|DivisibleBy|_) divisior num = if num % divisor = 0 the Some(num) else None
{1..999}
|> Seq.map (fun i ->
match i with | DivisibleBy 3 i -> i | DivisibleBy 5 i -> i | _ -> 0)
|> Seq.sum
All three variations above implement a common pattern of making a sequence of members with sought property and then folding it by calculating sum.
F# has many more functions than just map - this problem suggests using filter and sum, my approach would be something like
let valid n = Left as an exercise
let r =
[1..1000]
|> List.filter valid
|> List.sum
printfn "%i" r
I didn't want to do the whole problem, but filling in the missing function shouldn't be too hard
This is how you turn a loop with a counter into a recursive function. You do this by passing an accumulator parameter to the loop function that holds the current loop count.
For example:
let rec loop acc =
if acc = 10 then
printfn "endloop"
else
printfn "%d" acc
loop (acc + 1)
loop 0
This will stop when acc is 10.
I am trying to learn F# so I paid a visit to Project Euler and I am currently working on Problem 3.
The prime factors of 13195 are 5, 7,
13 and 29.
What is the largest prime
factor of the number 600851475143?
Some things to consider:
My first priority is to learn good functional habits.
My second priority is I would like it to be fast and efficient.
Within the following code I have marked the section this question is regarding.
let isPrime(n:int64) =
let rec check(i:int64) =
i > n / 2L or (n % i <> 0L && check(i + 1L))
check(2L)
let greatestPrimeFactor(n:int64) =
let nextPrime(prime:int64):int64 =
seq { for i = prime + 1L to System.Int64.MaxValue do if isPrime(i) then yield i }
|> Seq.skipWhile(fun v -> n % v <> 0L)
|> Seq.hd
let rec findNextPrimeFactor(number:int64, prime:int64):int64 =
if number = 1L then prime else
//************* No variable
(fun p -> findNextPrimeFactor(number / p, p))(nextPrime(prime))
//*************
//************* Variable
let p = nextPrime(prime)
findNextPrimeFactor(number / p, p)
//*************
findNextPrimeFactor(n, 2L)
Update
Based off some of the feedback I have refactored the code to be 10 times faster.
module Problem3
module private Internal =
let execute(number:int64):int64 =
let rec isPrime(value:int64, current:int64) =
current > value / 2L or (value % current <> 0L && isPrime(value, current + 1L))
let rec nextPrime(prime:int64):int64 =
if number % prime = 0L && isPrime(prime, 2L) then prime else nextPrime(prime + 1L)
let rec greatestPrimeFactor(current:int64, prime:int64):int64 =
if current = 1L then prime else nextPrime(prime + 1L) |> fun p -> greatestPrimeFactor(current / p, p)
greatestPrimeFactor(number, 2L)
let execute() = Internal.execute(600851475143L)
Update
I would like to thank everyone for there advice. This latest version is a compilation of all the advice I received.
module Problem3
module private Internal =
let largestPrimeFactor number =
let rec isPrime value current =
current > value / 2L || (value % current <> 0L && isPrime value (current + 1L))
let rec nextPrime value =
if number % value = 0L && isPrime value 2L then value else nextPrime (value + 1L)
let rec find current prime =
match current / prime with
| 1L -> prime
| current -> nextPrime (prime + 1L) |> find current
find number (nextPrime 2L)
let execute() = Internal.largestPrimeFactor 600851475143L
Functional programming becomes easier and more automatic with practice, so don't sweat it if you don't get it absolutely right on the first try.
With that in mind, let's take your sample code:
let rec findNextPrimeFactor(number:int64, prime:int64):int64 =
if number = 1L then prime else
//************* No variable
(fun p -> findNextPrimeFactor(number / p, p))(nextPrime(prime))
//*************
//************* Variable
let p = nextPrime(prime)
findNextPrimeFactor(number / p, p)
//*************
Your no variable version is just weird, don't use it. I like your version with the explicit let binding.
Another way to write it would be:
nextPrime(prime) |> fun p -> findNextPrimeFactor(number / p, p)
Its ok and occasionally useful to write it like this, but still comes across as a little weird. Most of the time, we use |> to curry values without needing to name our variables (in "pointfree" style). Try to anticipate how your function will be used, and if possible, re-write it so you can use it with the pipe operator without explicit declared variables. For example:
let rec findNextPrimeFactor number prime =
match number / prime with
| 1L -> prime
| number' -> nextPrime(prime) |> findNextPrimeFactor number'
No more named args :)
Ok, now that we have that out of the way, let's look at your isPrime function:
let isPrime(n:int64) =
let rec check(i:int64) =
i > n / 2L or (n % i <> 0L && check(i + 1L))
check(2L)
You've probably heard to use recursion instead of loops, and that much is right. But, wherever possible, you should abstract away recursion with folds, maps, or higher order functions. Two reasons for this:
its a little more readable, and
improperly written recursion will result in a stack overflow. For example, your function is not tail recursive, so it'll blow up on large values of n.
I'd rewrite isPrime like this:
let isPrime n = seq { 2L .. n / 2L } |> Seq.exists (fun i -> n % i = 0L) |> not
Most of the time, if you can abstract away your explicit looping, then you're just applying transformations to your input sequence until you get your results:
let maxFactor n =
seq { 2L .. n - 1L } // test inputs
|> Seq.filter isPrime // primes
|> Seq.filter (fun x -> n % x = 0L) // factors
|> Seq.max // result
We don't even have intermediate variables in this version. Coolness!
My second priority is I would like it
to be fast and efficient.
Most of the time, F# is going to be pretty comparable with C# in terms of speed, or it's going to be "fast enough". If you find your code takes a long time to execute, it probably means you're using the wrong data structure or a bad algorithm. For a concrete example, read the comments on this question.
So, the code I've written is "elegant" in the sense that its concise, gives the correct results, and doesn't rely on any trickery. Unfortunately, its not very fast. For start:
it uses trial division to create a sequence of primes, when the Sieve of Eratosthenes would be much faster. [Edit: I wrote a somewhat naive version of this sieve which didn't work for numbers larger than Int32.MaxValue, so I've removed the code.]
read Wikipedia's article on the prime counting function, it'll give you pointers on calculating the first n primes as well as estimating the upper and lower bounds for the nth prime.
[Edit: I included some code with a somewhat naive implementation of a sieve of eratosthenes. It only works for inputs less than int32.MaxValue, so it probably isn't suitable for project euler.]
Concerning "good functional habit" or rather good practice I see three minor things. Using the yield in your sequence is a little harder to read than just filter. Unnecessary type annotations in a type inferred language leads to difficult refactoring and makes the code harder to read. Don't go overboard and try to remove every type annotation though if you're finding it difficult. Lastly making a lambda function which only takes a value to use as a temp variable reduces readability.
As far as personal style goes I prefer more spaces and only using tupled arguments when the data makes sense being grouped together.
I'd write your original code like this.
let isPrime n =
let rec check i =
i > n / 2L || (n % i <> 0L && check (i + 1L))
check 2L
let greatestPrimeFactor n =
let nextPrime prime =
seq {prime + 1L .. System.Int64.MaxValue}
|> Seq.filter isPrime
|> Seq.skipWhile (fun v -> n % v <> 0L)
|> Seq.head
let rec findNextPrimeFactor number prime =
if number = 1L then
prime
else
let p = nextPrime(prime)
findNextPrimeFactor (number / p) p
findNextPrimeFactor n 2L
Your updated code is optimal for your approach. You would have to use a different algorithm like Yin Zhu answer to go faster. I wrote a test to check to see if F# makes the "check" function tail recursive and it does.
the variable p is actually a name binding, not a variable. Using name binding is not a bad style. And it is more readable. The lazy style of nextPrime is good, and it actually prime-test each number only once during the whole program.
My Solution
let problem3 =
let num = 600851475143L
let rec findMax (n:int64) (i:int64) =
if n=i || n<i then
n
elif n%i=0L then
findMax (n/i) i
else
findMax n (i+1L)
findMax num 2L
I basically divides num from 2, 3, 4.. and don't consider any prime numbers. Because if we divides all 2 from num, then we won't be able to divide it by 4,8, etc.
on this number, my solution is quicker:
> greatestPrimeFactor 600851475143L;;
Real: 00:00:01.110, CPU: 00:00:00.702, GC gen0: 1, gen1: 1, gen2: 0
val it : int64 = 6857L
>
Real: 00:00:00.001, CPU: 00:00:00.000, GC gen0: 0, gen1: 0, gen2: 0
val problem3 : int64 = 6857L
I think that the code with the temporary binding is significantly easier to read. It's pretty unusual to create an anonymous function and then immediately apply it to a value as you do in the other case. If you really want to avoid using a temporary value, I think that the most idiomatic way to do that in F# would be to use the (|>) operator to pipe the value into the anonymous function, but I still think that this isn't quite as readable.
I've been trying to work my way through Problem 27 of Project Euler, but this one seems to be stumping me. Firstly, the code is taking far too long to run (a couple of minutes maybe, on my machine, but more importantly, it's returning the wrong answer though I really can't spot anything wrong with the algorithm after looking through it for a while.
Here is my current code for the solution.
/// Checks number for primality.
let is_prime n =
[|1 .. 2 .. sqrt_int n|] |> Array.for_all (fun x -> n % x <> 0)
/// Memoizes a function.
let memoize f =
let cache = Dictionary<_, _>()
fun x ->
let found, res = cache.TryGetValue(x)
if found then
res
else
let res = f x
cache.[x] <- res
res
/// Problem 27
/// Find a quadratic formula that produces the maximum number of primes for consecutive values of n.
let problem27 n =
let is_prime_mem = memoize is_prime
let range = [|-(n - 1) .. n - 1|]
let natural_nums = Seq.init_infinite (fun i -> i)
range |> Array.map (fun a -> (range |> Array.map (fun b ->
let formula n = n * n + a * n + b
let num_conseq_primes = natural_nums |> Seq.map (fun n -> (n, formula n))
|> Seq.find (fun (n, f) -> not (is_prime_mem f)) |> fst
(a * b, num_conseq_primes)) |> Array.max_by snd)) |> Array.max_by snd |> fst
printn_any (problem27 1000)
Any tips on how to a) get this algorithm actually returning the right answer (I think I'm at least taking a workable approach) and b) improve the performance, as it clearly exceeds the "one minute rule" set out in the Project Euler FAQ. I'm a bit of a newbie to functional programming, so any advice on how I might consider the problem with a more functional solution in mind would also be appreciated.
Two remarks:
You may take advantage of the fact that b must be prime. This follows from the fact that the problem asks for the longest sequence of primes for n = 0, 1, 2, ...
So, formula(0) must be prime to begin with , but formula(0) = b, therefore, b must be prime.
I am not an F# programmer, but it seems to me that the code does not try n= 0 at all. This, of course, does not meet the problem's requirement that n must start from 0, therefore there are neglectable chances a correct answer could be produced.
Right, after a lot of checking that all the helper functions were doing what they should, I've finally reached a working (and reasonably efficient) solution.
Firstly, the is_prime function was completely wrong (thanks to Dimitre Novatchev for making me look at that). I'm not sure quite how I arrived at the function I posted in the original question, but I had assumed it was working since I'd used it in previous problems. (Most likely, I had just tweaked it and broken it since.) Anyway, the working version of this function (which crucially returns false for all integers less than 2) is this:
/// Checks number for primality.
let is_prime n =
if n < 2 then false
else [|2 .. sqrt_int n|] |> Array.for_all (fun x -> n % x <> 0)
The main function was changed to the following:
/// Problem 27
/// Find a quadratic formula that produces the maximum number of primes for consecutive values of n.
let problem27 n =
let is_prime_mem = memoize is_prime
let set_b = primes (int64 (n - 1)) |> List.to_array |> Array.map int
let set_a = [|-(n - 1) .. n - 1|]
let set_n = Seq.init_infinite (fun i -> i)
set_b |> Array.map (fun b -> (set_a |> Array.map (fun a ->
let formula n = n * n + a * n + b
let num_conseq_primes = set_n |> Seq.find (fun n -> not (is_prime_mem (formula n)))
(a * b, num_conseq_primes))
|> Array.max_by snd)) |> Array.max_by snd |> fst
The key here to increase speed was to only generate the set of primes between 1 and 1000 for the values of b (using the primes function, my implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes method). I also managed to make this code slightly more concise by eliminating the unnecessary Seq.map.
So, I'm pretty happy with the solution I have now (it takes just under a second), though of course any further suggestions would still be welcome...
You could speed up your "is_prime" function by using a probabilistic algorithm. One of the easiest quick algorithms for this is the Miller-Rabin algorithm.
to get rid of half your computations you could also make the array of possible a´s only contain odd numbers
my superfast python solution :P
flag = [0]*204
primes = []
def ifc(n): return flag[n>>6]&(1<<((n>>1)&31))
def isc(n): flag[n>>6]|=(1<<((n>>1)&31))
def sieve():
for i in xrange(3, 114, 2):
if ifc(i) == 0:
for j in xrange(i*i, 12996, i<<1): isc(j)
def store():
primes.append(2)
for i in xrange(3, 1000, 2):
if ifc(i) == 0: primes.append(i)
def isprime(n):
if n < 2: return 0
if n == 2: return 1
if n & 1 == 0: return 0
if ifc(n) == 0: return 1
return 0
def main():
sieve()
store()
mmax, ret = 0, 0
for b in primes:
for a in xrange(-999, 1000, 2):
n = 1
while isprime(n*n + a*n + b): n += 1
if n > mmax: mmax, ret = n, a * b
print ret
main()