Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention, but didn't he forget to mention that numbers must be displayed in unary form and just jumps right into checking "111", as if one hundred and eleven is prime, when he is actually checking if 3 is a prime.
He covered it, but I don't think he explained what was going on particularly well. I'm surprised by all of the people claiming it was a good explanation. I think if he had picked a few numbers and actually worked them through the algorithm completely it would have been much more of a useful explanation.
I agree. I’m not familiar with Python and figured the '1'*n was just a quirk to convert the int to a string, not an integral part of the process. Kind of a weird way to repeat a string, tbh, but I guess the concision is appreciated in typical Python applications like computer linguistics or something.
Yeah, that is the very first thing he did when he showed his python code.
I don’t think he drew attention to it, because a few minutes later he highlights that it isn’t actually as simple as he first expressed, and shows the “1” * n.