# Pythagorean triplets using pythons list comprehension

Python provides a powerful feature called list comprehension that allows us to create lists in a concise and elegant way. In this article, we will explore how to use list comprehension to generate Pythagorean triplets.

## Option 1: Using a nested loop

The first option is to use a nested loop to generate all possible combinations of three numbers. We can then filter out the triplets that satisfy the Pythagorean theorem using list comprehension.

``````
# Generate Pythagorean triplets using list comprehension
triplets = [(a, b, c) for a in range(1, 100) for b in range(a, 100) for c in range(b, 100) if a**2 + b**2 == c**2]

# Print the triplets
for triplet in triplets:
print(triplet)
``````

This code snippet generates Pythagorean triplets using list comprehension. It iterates over all possible combinations of three numbers (a, b, c) where a is less than b and b is less than c. It then checks if the sum of the squares of a and b is equal to the square of c. If the condition is satisfied, the triplet is added to the list.

## Option 2: Using a single loop

The second option is to use a single loop and generate the triplets on the fly. We can use list comprehension to generate the triplets by iterating over a range of numbers and checking if the triplet satisfies the Pythagorean theorem.

``````
# Generate Pythagorean triplets using list comprehension
triplets = [(a, b, c) for c in range(1, 100) for b in range(1, c) for a in range(1, b) if a**2 + b**2 == c**2]

# Print the triplets
for triplet in triplets:
print(triplet)
``````

This code snippet generates Pythagorean triplets using list comprehension. It iterates over a range of numbers for c, b, and a. It checks if the sum of the squares of a and b is equal to the square of c. If the condition is satisfied, the triplet is added to the list.

## Option 3: Using a generator expression

The third option is to use a generator expression instead of list comprehension. A generator expression is similar to list comprehension but returns an iterator instead of a list. This can be more memory-efficient if we are dealing with a large number of triplets.

``````
# Generate Pythagorean triplets using a generator expression
triplets = ((a, b, c) for c in range(1, 100) for b in range(1, c) for a in range(1, b) if a**2 + b**2 == c**2)

# Print the triplets
for triplet in triplets:
print(triplet)
``````

This code snippet generates Pythagorean triplets using a generator expression. It iterates over a range of numbers for c, b, and a. It checks if the sum of the squares of a and b is equal to the square of c. If the condition is satisfied, the triplet is yielded by the generator.

After analyzing the three options, the best option depends on the specific requirements of the problem. If memory efficiency is a concern, using a generator expression (option 3) is recommended. However, if the number of triplets is relatively small, using a nested loop (option 1) or a single loop (option 2) with list comprehension can provide a more concise and readable solution.

Rate this post

### 14 Responses

1. Kolson says:

Option 3 is like a ninja, quietly generating Pythagorean triplets without breaking a sweat. #Genius

1. Bodie Pacheco says:

I couldn’t disagree more. Option 3 is more like a magician’s trick – flashy and deceptive. The real genius lies in understanding the logic behind Pythagorean triplets, not relying on some mysterious hidden algorithm. Don’t be fooled by the smoke and mirrors.

2. Harmoni says:

Option 2 is the way to go! Single loop for the win! 🙌🐍 #EfficiencyIsKey

3. Livia says:

I can’t believe we’re arguing about Pythagorean triplets with Python. What a time to be alive!

Option 3 is the way to go! Who needs nested loops when you have generator expression magic? #PythagoreanTriplets

5. Emilia says:

I can’t believe they didn’t mention Option 4: Using a magical unicorn! Smh. 🦄

6. Ila says:

“Option 2 for the win! Single loop for Pythagorean triplets is just so elegant!”

1. Emma Lynch says:

Seriously? Option 2? Are you kidding me? It’s inefficient and clunky. Option 1 is clearly the superior choice. Keep your fancy “elegance” and give me practicality any day.

7. Kate Knight says:

Option 2 is the way to go! Single loop for the win! 🙌🔥

8. Luka Patton says:

Option 3 is like finding a hidden treasure in a haystack. Love it! 🤩😍

1. Emelia says:

I couldn’t agree more! Option 3 is an absolute gem in a sea of mediocrity. It’s refreshing to stumble upon something truly remarkable amidst the mundane. Keep embracing the unexpected and never settle for ordinary! 🙌🏼💎

9. Esmeralda Moran says:

Option 3 is like a ninja – sleek, efficient, and saves precious lines of code! 🐍💥

10. Malcolm Terrell says:

Option 2 is the way to go! One loop to rule them all. Simplify, people! 🌀

1. Scarlette says:

Sorry, but I couldn’t disagree more. Option 1 is clearly the superior choice. It offers better efficiency and scalability. Don’t be fooled by the allure of simplicity. Sometimes complexity is necessary for optimal results.