12

range() and xrange() work for 10-digit-numbers. But how about 13-digit-numbers? I didn't find anything in the forum.

Teun Zengerink
  • 4,277
  • 5
  • 30
  • 32
kame
  • 20,848
  • 33
  • 104
  • 159
  • Related: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2128989/python-len-and-size-of-ints – Mark Byers Feb 02 '10 at 19:56
  • What exactly are you trying to do? Why do you need such large ranges? – Mark Byers Feb 02 '10 at 19:58
  • I try to solve euler-project number 15. Maybe I should ask a new question. – kame Feb 02 '10 at 20:05
  • Brute force is not the way to solve projecteuler #15! You would be waiting a *long* time - more than a day if you can try 1000000 routes per second – John La Rooy Feb 02 '10 at 20:12
  • 2
    Yes, you might have trouble with the 60 second project Euler guideline this way. – Ramashalanka Feb 02 '10 at 20:28
  • Do you think software isn't always important to solve the euler-project-questions? – kame Feb 02 '10 at 20:29
  • You might be surprised how many projecteuler problems can be solved with paper and pencil. #15 is probably a bit hard to do that way unless you really enjoy multiplication by hand, but you can solve it easily with just a basic scientific calculator. – John La Rooy Feb 02 '10 at 21:11
  • @gnibbler Cancel factors when solving #15 on paper, and it's quite easy. –  Feb 03 '10 at 03:25
  • 1
    Related: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1482480/xrange2100-overflowerror-long-int-too-large-to-convert-to-int – jfs Feb 28 '10 at 02:17

9 Answers9

12

You could try this. Same semantics as range:

import operator
def lrange(num1, num2 = None, step = 1):
    op = operator.__lt__

    if num2 is None:
        num1, num2 = 0, num1
    if num2 < num1:
        if step > 0:
            num1 = num2
        op = operator.__gt__
    elif step < 0:
        num1 = num2

    while op(num1, num2):
        yield num1
        num1 += step

>>> list(lrange(138264128374162347812634134, 138264128374162347812634140))
[138264128374162347812634134L, 138264128374162347812634135L, 138264128374162347812634136L, 138264128374162347812634137L, 138264128374162347812634138L, 138264128374162347812634139L]

Another solution would be using itertools.islice, as suggested inxrange's documentation

Ricardo Cárdenes
  • 9,004
  • 1
  • 21
  • 34
6

No problems with creating the range, as long as you don't want 10**13 elements, e.g.

range(10**14,10**15,10**14)

gives

[100000000000000, 200000000000000, 300000000000000, 400000000000000, 500000000000000, 600000000000000, 700000000000000, 800000000000000, 900000000000000]
Ramashalanka
  • 8,564
  • 1
  • 35
  • 46
6

if you need enumerating integer try using itertools:

itertools.count(1000000000000)

it should not allocate memory for a list of 1000000000000 elements

dfa
  • 114,442
  • 31
  • 189
  • 228
2

On 64-bit Python:

>>> xrange(9999999999999)
xrange(9999999999999)

I would not use range() for a 13-digit number. My poor machine would not be able to hold the resultant list.

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
  • 776,304
  • 153
  • 1,341
  • 1,358
2

I don't think it will work. Functions like len expect the result to fit into a 4 byte integer, due to restrictions in the cPython implementation.

In Python 3.0:

>>> range(9999999999999)
range(0, 9999999999999)

It looks like it works, but...

>>> len(range(9999999999999))
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<pyshell#2>", line 1, in <module>
    len(range(9999999999999))
OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to C ssize_t

See here for a related question.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Mark Byers
  • 811,555
  • 193
  • 1,581
  • 1,452
1

range(x) returns a list.Python lists cant contain that many elements. You should use xrange() to iterate through those digits if you need to do trillions of cycles.?

corn3lius
  • 4,857
  • 2
  • 31
  • 36
1

range() and xrange() work in recent enough versions of Python; however, in 2.5 or less you'll need to work around the int to long conversion.

def irange(start, stop=None, step=1):
    if stop is None:
        stop = long(start)
        num = 1L
    else:
        stop = long(stop)
        num = long(start)
    step = long(step)
    while num < stop:
        yield num
        num += step

This isn't a complete solution (it doesn't handle negative steps), but it should get you going.

eswald
  • 8,368
  • 4
  • 28
  • 28
0

For sollution of this problem you don't need such long numbers, because you need only prime factors, you can use square root:

for i in xrange(2, int((n+1)**0.5)):
vil
  • 917
  • 1
  • 8
  • 12
0

The difference between range() and xrange() is that the first returns the entire list, while the second returns a generator that generates each number as it is needed. The second one should work for any number, no matter how large.

In Python 3.0, xrange() has disappeared and range() behaves like xrange() did previously.

Confusion
  • 16,256
  • 8
  • 46
  • 71
  • Unfortunately `xrange` (in Python 2.7) doesn't support `long` integers either. For example: the expression ```xrange(sys.maxint, sys.maxint+10)``` raises ```OverflowError: Python int too large to convert to C long``` – typeracer Jun 30 '20 at 22:51