Improve Project Euler problem 058 solution 1

[MaximSmolskiy]

Describe your change:

Improve Project Euler problem 058 solution 1 - the top 7 slowest solution on Travis CI logs (under slowest 10 durations: 11.38s call scripts/validate_solutions.py::test_project_euler[problem_058/sol1.py]):

• Fix typo

• Improve solution (locally 4+ times - from 8+ seconds to ~2 seconds)

• Add an algorithm?

• Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?

• Documentation change?

Checklist:

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
• This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
• I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
• This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
• All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
• All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
• All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
• All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
• All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
• All new algorithms have a URL in its comments that points to Wikipedia or other similar explanation.
• If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the commit message contains Fixes: #{$ISSUE_NO}.

[chakeson]

Changes the prime checker and uses isqrt. Tested both solutions with timeit with a milion iterations testing numbers from 0 to 100. I tested only the isprime function.
Base was 7.2938464519999995 the changed version in the pull request was 6.3931597710000005.

For checking numbers 0 to 1000, same set up I got: 72.098172718s old and 95.55209983499999 ne.

[MaximSmolskiy]

Changes the prime checker and uses isqrt. Tested both solutions with timeit with a milion iterations testing numbers from 0 to 100. I tested only the isprime function. Base was 7.2938464519999995 the changed version in the pull request was 6.3931597710000005.

For checking numbers 0 to 1000, same set up I got: 72.098172718s old and 95.55209983499999 ne.

@chakeson Do you want to say that my improvement is slower for numbers 0 to 1000 and faster for numbers from 0 to 100? Please check these tests once more time. In my opinion, the greater number, the faster improvement (over base)

P.S. You approved pr, but you are not authorized to merge it?

[chakeson]

Changes the prime checker and uses isqrt. Tested both solutions with timeit with a milion iterations testing numbers from 0 to 100. I tested only the isprime function. Base was 7.2938464519999995 the changed version in the pull request was 6.3931597710000005.
For checking numbers 0 to 1000, same set up I got: 72.098172718s old and 95.55209983499999 ne.

@chakeson Do you want to say that my improvement is slower for numbers 0 to 1000 and faster for numbers from 0 to 100? Please check these tests once more time. In my opinion, the greater number, the faster improvement (over base)

P.S. You approved pr, but you are not authorized to merge it?

It's testing 10x the size so I would expect it to be around 10x the time, but the speed up for 1000 is faster then the speed up for 100. For 100 its 12% faster for 1000 its 24% faster.
It's python its not going to be very fast no matter what you do. Using isqrt will cause it too look for it in local scoop then in "solution scope" then global and find it so that will add time just looking for it (not 100% sure on this).

[MaximSmolskiy]

@poyea @l3str4nge please review

[poyea]

Thank you for your pull request!🤩

[FirePing32]

@poyea Can you also review Project Euler P78 #5565 ?