In trying to learn Clojure and wrap my head around good functional programming, and hoping to learn more idiomatic Clojure, I have started working through the Project Euler problems. In doing this, I have also setup a repository on github.com to keep track of my progress, which can be found at https://github.com/stevenproctor/project-euler-clojure. My approach to Problem 6 can be found here.

Problem 7 of Project Euler is described as:

What is the 10 001st prime number?

(defn is-prime? [n]
(cond (<= n 1) false
(= n 2) true
:else (loop [f 2]
(cond (zero? (rem n f)) false
(> f (Math/sqrt n)) true
:else (recur (inc f))))))
(defn problem7
([] (problem7 10001))
([n] (first (skip-n (dec n) (filter is-prime? (iterate inc 1))))))

The is-prime? function check to see if the number is prime by checking if any of the numbers from 2 to the square root of the number is a divisor of the number.

The problem7 function is finds the n-th number in the sequence by skiping n-1 items, and then taking the first item of that sequence. This was before a previous post in which someone pointed out that the drop function was available instead of my home rolled skip-n function, so that can be replaced on the update.

Again, I would love comments and suggestions on my solution to this problem, and if there are tweaks to make it more Clojure-ish.

**Update**

My solution to Problem 8 has been posted.

–Proctor

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

#1 by Arcane Sentiment on June 7, 2012 - 19:38

The loop can be written more concisely with

`some`

or`not-any?`

and`range`

. You might also try dividing only by prime factors instead of all integers; this is a good exercise in recursive lazy data.The

`is-`

prefix is not necessary, since it means the same thing as the`?`

suffix.You probably want

`nth`

instead of`(first (drop ...))`

.`problem7`

is an awkward name. Unless you want to name all your solutions like this, how about a descriptive name like`nth-prime`

instead? (However, I probably wouldn’t bother creating this function at all — I’d just write the expression to get the 10001st prime.)#2 by Proctor on June 7, 2012 - 20:37

So you are suggestion something along the lines of:

That does come across much more elegant and simple.

And for nth, as soon as I read your comment, it hit me as obvious.

Thanks for your feedback,

–Proctor

#3 by Arcane Sentiment on June 8, 2012 - 13:59

Yes. Or, more efficiently:

where

`primes`

is the infinite sequence of primes.