199 sats \ 2 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 6h \ parent \ on: [Daily puzzle] Prime number puzzle science
68 is correct.
Are you sure about the ones larger than 100 though? Maybe you need to add all the primes up to that supposed candidate number in your primes list to make sure they don't end up breaking that "exactly two" constraint.
write
preview
123 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 6h
Ah, you're right about larger than 100. I can't find one larger than 68. Revised script:
import pandas as pd

def get_primes(n):
    out = list()
    sieve = [True] * (n+1)
    for p in range(2, n+1):
        if (sieve[p]):
            out.append(p)
            for i in range(p, n+1, p):
                sieve[i] = False
    return out

n = 100
primes = get_primes(n)

data = []
for i in range(len(primes)):
    for j in range(i+1,len(primes)):
        x = primes[i]
        y = primes[j]
        z = x + y
        if z<=n:
            data.append({'z':z,'x':x,'y':y})
data = pd.DataFrame.from_dict(data)
counts = data.groupby('z').agg(count=('z','count')).reset_index()
counts.loc[counts['count']==2].sort_values(by='z',ascending=False).head(1)
I tried up to n=10,000 and nothing higher than 68 was found.
reply
14 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 3h
def get_primes(n): out = list() sieve = [True] * (n+1) for p in range(2, n+1): if (sieve[p]): out.append(p) for i in range(p, n+1, p): sieve[i] = False return out
Fancy pancy there with your Sieve of Eratosthenes ;)
reply