What your code can do is run this first and if it returns false then do a quick double check using a traditional isPrime function. Really speeds things up!

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it has a 99.999%+ success rate on a large enough sample and I can live with that.

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 6 points 9 months ago

Nah, you've always got to check the corner cases. It's a variation on Murphy's Law - you don't encounter corner cases when you're developing a program but corner cases are 99 percent of an everyday user's interaction.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Good idea, but it would be much faster if you do the double-check on true instead.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

This is a power(ful) idea.

Are my stats/programmers in the house?

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Better. Return true if the number is in a stored list of known primes, otherwise return false right away. But then, start a separate thread with an actual verification algorithm. When the verification is done, if it was actually a prime number, you just crash the program with a WasActuallyPrime exception.