We Keep Coding

What is the complexity of my code that prints prime numbers within a range?

This code prints all prime numbers between start and end, based on the user's input.
What is its complexity? Is it O(end * sqrt(n))?
/**
* Print prime numbers between start and end inputs
* Time-Complexity: O(end * sqrt(n))
* Space-Complexity: O(1) only one value as input
* #param start, end
* #return
*/
public void printPrimeSeries(int start, int end) {
for (int i = start; i < end; i++) {
if (findPrimeOrNot(i)) {
System.out.println("The value " + i + " is a prime number");
}
}
}
public boolean findPrimeOrNot(int n) {
for (int i = 2; i <= Math.sqrt(n); i++) {
if (n % i == 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter start number for prime:");
int startInput = scanner.nextInt();
System.out.println("Enter end number for prime:");
int endInput = scanner.nextInt();
PrimeNoSeries primeNoSeries = new PrimeNoSeries();
primeNoSeries.printPrimeSeries(startInput, endInput);
}

Going step by step, to be concise, let's call your start value m, and end as n:
printPrimeSeries method is linearly corelated to n - m
For each element within the range above, the complexity of inner loop is sqrt(n) - 2. Neglecting the constant it is sqrt(n)
So, the complexity appears to be O((n - m) * sqrt(n)).

The overall complexity is O(end - start) * sqrt(end)). FYI: I show you an alternative estimation, which is not as tight:
In O-notation you are interested in the worst case, therefore we can assume that start is always 0. Now we only need end for the analysis.
The method printPrimeSeries is just O(end), from 0 to end. The method uses findPrimeOrNot that iterates from 2 to Math.sqrt(n), which is O(sqrt(n)). The maximum value for n is the value of end, so we can call the complexity O(sqrt(end)) for our purposes. Combining both is O(end) * O(sqrt(end)), which is just O(end sqrt(end)).
There are interesting details to the question, which have to do with the distribution of prime numbers. You can read about it here.

Issue with recursion because thread suspension

I was playing around with a few practice problems in Java. I wrote a recursive program for program given below. My solution is right except for the suspended (which I believe) gets back to active state and changes the value of the recursive method. I have also added a screenshot of Eclipse in debug mode where the thread stack is shown.
package com.nix.tryout.tests;
/**
* For given two numbers A and B such that 2 <= A <= B,
* Find most number of sqrt operations for a given number such that square root of result is a whole number and it is again square rooted until either the
* number is less than two or has decimals.
* example if A = 6000 and B = 7000, sqrt of 6061 = 81, sqrt of 81 = 9 and sqrt of 9 = 3. Hence, answer is 3
*
* #author nitinramachandran
*
*/
public class TestTwo {
public int solution(int A, int B) {
int count = 0;
for(int i = B; i > A ; --i) {
int tempCount = getSqrtCount(Double.valueOf(i), 0);
if(tempCount > count) {
count = tempCount;
}
}
return count;
}
// Recursively gets count of square roots where the number is whole
private int getSqrtCount(Double value, int count) {
final Double sqrt = Math.sqrt(value);
if((sqrt > 2) && (sqrt % 1 == 0)) {
++count;
getSqrtCount(sqrt, count);
}
return count;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestTwo t2 = new TestTwo();
System.out.println(t2.solution(6550, 6570));
}
}
The above screenshot is from my debugger and I've circled the Thread stack. Can anyone try and run the program and let me know what the problem is and what would be the solution? I could come up with a non recursive solution.

Your recursion is wrong, since the value of count will return in any case 0 or 1 even if it goes deep down into recursive calls. Java is pass by value, meaning that modifying the value of a primitive inside of a method wont be visible outside of that method. In order to correct this, we can write the following recursion:
private int getSqrtCount(Double value) {
final Double sqrt = Math.sqrt(value);
if((sqrt > 2) && (sqrt % 1 == 0)) {
return getSqrtCount(sqrt) + 1;
}
return 0;
}

Your code is wrong, you should have
return getSqrtCount(sqrt, count);
instead of
getSqrtCount(sqrt, count);
Otherwise the recursion is pointless, you're completely ignoring the result of the recursion.

Tried Euler's #14 again with recursion, didn't work for me. SPOILERS EULER 14th

I posted earlier trying to bruteforce it, but it didn't work. Here's my attempt #2 with recursion (first time using recursive methods). Please help!
Here's what happens: The code runs fine, with smaller numbers, but when we get up to one million, the code simply will run, and nothint at all happens. In Eclipse, it still gives me the option to end, but I've let it run for a very long time with nothing helping.
/**
* The following iterative sequence is defined for the set of positive
* integers:
*
* n → n/2 (n is even) n → 3n + 1 (n is odd)
*
* Using the rule above and starting with 13, we generate the following
* sequence: 13 → 40 → 20 → 10 → 5 → 16 → 8 → 4 → 2 → 1
*
* It can be seen that this sequence (starting at 13 and finishing at 1)
* contains 10 terms. Although it has not been proved yet (Collatz Problem),
* it is thought that all starting numbers finish at 1.
*
* Which starting number, under one million, produces the longest chain?
*
* NOTE: Once the chain starts the terms are allowed to go above one
* million.
*/
public class Euler14 {
static int desiredMax = 1000000;
static int maxTerm = 0;
static int maxNumberOfTerms = 0;
static int currentNumber = 0;
static int numberOfTerms = 0;
public static void doMath(int startingNumber) {
if(startingNumber == 1) {
System.out.print( maxTerm + " " + maxNumberOfTerms);
}
else {
currentNumber = desiredMax;
while(currentNumber!= 1) {
if(currentNumber%2 == 0) {
currentNumber = currentNumber/2;
numberOfTerms++;
} else {
currentNumber = (3 * currentNumber) + 1;
numberOfTerms++;
}
}
numberOfTerms++;
if(numberOfTerms > maxNumberOfTerms) {
maxNumberOfTerms = numberOfTerms;
maxTerm = startingNumber;
}
desiredMax--;
doMath(desiredMax);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
doMath(desiredMax);
}
}

There are many wrong things with your code :
use of a recursive method which is no more no less than a loop going downward
use of static variables
numberOfTerms never reinitialized
as pointed by azurefrog, you have an integer overflow which is causing an infinite loop.
I was rearranging your code with as few changes as possible when he came up with the answer, so all I can do now is to show you a working code very similar to yours. See how cleaner it is this way :
public class Euler14 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int maxTerm = 1000000;
int maxNumberOfTerms = 1;
// this loop replaces your recursion, which is not needed here and quite costly even if it is tail-recursion
for (int i = maxTerm ; i >= 2; i--) {
int numberOfTerms = 0;
// declare as long to prevent the overflow
long currentNumber = i;
while (currentNumber != 1) {
if (currentNumber % 2 == 0)
currentNumber = currentNumber / 2;
else
currentNumber = (3 * currentNumber) + 1;
numberOfTerms++;
if (numberOfTerms > maxNumberOfTerms) {
maxNumberOfTerms = numberOfTerms;
maxTerm = i;
}
}
}
System.out.println(maxTerm);
}
}

The main problem is that you are trying to do math on large numbers with ints. When your program gets down to a desiredMax of 999167, you're going into an infinite loop.
In Java, the largest value an int can represent is 2,147,483,647.
When your algorithm gets to 999167, it quickly exceeds that limit.
If you print the value of currentNumber in your inner while-loop, you see this:
...
1330496806
665248403
1995745210
997872605
-1301349480 <-- oops
-650674740
-325337370
...
You are trying to set currentNumber to 2,993,617,816, so your value is going to overflow.
This causes your while-loop to never terminate, since you don't account for negative numbers. You quickly settle into a repeating sequence of
-25
-74
-37
-110
-55
-164
-82
-41
-122
-61
-182
-91
-272
-136
-68
-34
-17
-50
-25
... ad infinitum
You could try switching to a bigger numerical representation (long), but, even if you switch to using long values, the way you are trying to recurse will cause a stack overflow long before you ever finish trying to evaluate a desiredMax of 1000000. (On my box, I get a StackOverflowError when I get down to 997474).
You need to go back and rethink the structure of your program. Recursion can be a useful tool, but it's dangerous to use unless you know that you aren't going to go too deep.

This is a good example of where you can employ Memoization.
Below is a solution that uses recursion, but avoids the need to continually go over paths you've calculated already.
This also separates the chain-calculation code from the searching-for-the-maximum code.
public class Euler14 {
static long[] records = new long[1000000];
// //////////////////////////////////////////////
// Recursively calculates one chain length
//
static long getLength(long n) {
// Terminating condition
if (n == 1) {
return n;
}
// Have we already calculated this?
if ((n < records.length) && (records[(int) n] != 0)) {
return records[(int) n];
}
// Haven't calculated this yet, so calculate it now
long length = getLength(n % 2 == 0 ? n / 2 : 3 * n + 1) + 1;
// Record the result for later use
if (n < records.length) {
records[(int) n] = length;
}
return length;
}
static long calculateQuestionFourteen() {
long maxLength = 0;
long maxStart = 0;
for (long i = 1; i < 1000000; ++i) {
long thisLength = getLength(i);
if (thisLength > maxLength) {
maxLength = thisLength;
maxStart = i;
}
}
return maxStart;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println(calculateQuestionFourteen());
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis() - start);
}
}

BigInteger: count the number of decimal digits in a scalable method

I need the count the number of decimal digits of a BigInteger. For example:
99 returns 2
1234 returns 4
9999 returns 4
12345678901234567890 returns 20
I need to do this for a BigInteger with 184948 decimal digits and more. How can I do this fast and scalable?
The convert-to-String approach is slow:
public String getWritableNumber(BigInteger number) {
// Takes over 30 seconds for 184948 decimal digits
return "10^" + (number.toString().length() - 1);
}
This loop-devide-by-ten approach is even slower:
public String getWritableNumber(BigInteger number) {
int digitSize = 0;
while (!number.equals(BigInteger.ZERO)) {
number = number.divide(BigInteger.TEN);
digitSize++;
}
return "10^" + (digitSize - 1);
}
Are there any faster methods?

Here's a fast method based on Dariusz's answer:
public static int getDigitCount(BigInteger number) {
double factor = Math.log(2) / Math.log(10);
int digitCount = (int) (factor * number.bitLength() + 1);
if (BigInteger.TEN.pow(digitCount - 1).compareTo(number) > 0) {
return digitCount - 1;
}
return digitCount;
}
The following code tests the numbers 1, 9, 10, 99, 100, 999, 1000, etc. all the way to ten-thousand digits:
public static void test() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
BigInteger n = BigInteger.TEN.pow(i);
if (getDigitCount(n.subtract(BigInteger.ONE)) != i || getDigitCount(n) != i + 1) {
System.out.println("Failure: " + i);
}
}
System.out.println("Done");
}
This can check a BigInteger with 184,948 decimal digits and more in well under a second.

This looks like it is working. I haven't run exhaustive tests yet, n'or have I run any time tests but it seems to have a reasonable run time.
public class Test {
/**
* Optimised for huge numbers.
*
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm#Change_of_base
*
* States that log[b](x) = log[k](x)/log[k](b)
*
* We can get log[2](x) as the bitCount of the number so what we need is
* essentially bitCount/log[2](10). Sadly that will lead to inaccuracies so
* here I will attempt an iterative process that should achieve accuracy.
*
* log[2](10) = 3.32192809488736234787 so if I divide by 10^(bitCount/4) we
* should not go too far. In fact repeating that process while adding (bitCount/4)
* to the running count of the digits will end up with an accurate figure
* given some twiddling at the end.
*
* So here's the scheme:
*
* While there are more than 4 bits in the number
* Divide by 10^(bits/4)
* Increase digit count by (bits/4)
*
* Fiddle around to accommodate the remaining digit - if there is one.
*
* Essentially - each time around the loop we remove a number of decimal
* digits (by dividing by 10^n) keeping a count of how many we've removed.
*
* The number of digits we remove is estimated from the number of bits in the
* number (i.e. log[2](x) / 4). The perfect figure for the reduction would be
* log[2](x) / 3.3219... so dividing by 4 is a good under-estimate. We
* don't go too far but it does mean we have to repeat it just a few times.
*/
private int log10(BigInteger huge) {
int digits = 0;
int bits = huge.bitLength();
// Serious reductions.
while (bits > 4) {
// 4 > log[2](10) so we should not reduce it too far.
int reduce = bits / 4;
// Divide by 10^reduce
huge = huge.divide(BigInteger.TEN.pow(reduce));
// Removed that many decimal digits.
digits += reduce;
// Recalculate bitLength
bits = huge.bitLength();
}
// Now 4 bits or less - add 1 if necessary.
if ( huge.intValue() > 9 ) {
digits += 1;
}
return digits;
}
// Random tests.
Random rnd = new Random();
// Limit the bit length.
int maxBits = BigInteger.TEN.pow(200000).bitLength();
public void test() {
// 100 tests.
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
BigInteger huge = new BigInteger((int)(Math.random() * maxBits), rnd);
// Note start time.
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
// Do my method.
int myLength = log10(huge);
// Record my result.
System.out.println("Digits: " + myLength+ " Took: " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - start));
// Check the result.
int trueLength = huge.toString().length() - 1;
if (trueLength != myLength) {
System.out.println("WRONG!! " + (myLength - trueLength));
}
}
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
new Test().test();
}
}
Took about 3 seconds on my Celeron M laptop so it should hit sub 2 seconds on some decent kit.

I think that you could use bitLength() to get a log2 value, then change the base to 10.
The result may be wrong, however, by one digit, so this is just an approximation.
However, if that's acceptable, you could always add 1 to the result and bound it to be at most. Or, subtract 1, and get at least.

You can first convert the BigInteger to a BigDecimal and then use this answer to compute the number of digits. This seems more efficient than using BigInteger.toString() as that would allocate memory for String representation.
private static int numberOfDigits(BigInteger value) {
return significantDigits(new BigDecimal(value));
}
private static int significantDigits(BigDecimal value) {
return value.scale() < 0
? value.precision() - value.scale()
: value.precision();
}

This is an another way to do it faster than Convert-to-String method. Not the best run time, but still reasonable 0.65 seconds versus 2.46 seconds with Convert-to-String method (at 180000 digits).
This method computes the integer part of the base-10 logarithm from the given value. However, instead of using loop-divide, it uses a technique similar to Exponentiation by Squaring.
Here is a crude implementation that achieves the runtime mentioned earlier:
public static BigInteger log(BigInteger base,BigInteger num)
{
/* The technique tries to get the products among the squares of base
* close to the actual value as much as possible without exceeding it.
* */
BigInteger resultSet = BigInteger.ZERO;
BigInteger actMult = BigInteger.ONE;
BigInteger lastMult = BigInteger.ONE;
BigInteger actor = base;
BigInteger incrementor = BigInteger.ONE;
while(actMult.multiply(base).compareTo(num)<1)
{
int count = 0;
while(actMult.multiply(actor).compareTo(num)<1)
{
lastMult = actor; //Keep the old squares
actor = actor.multiply(actor); //Square the base repeatedly until the value exceeds
if(count>0) incrementor = incrementor.multiply(BigInteger.valueOf(2));
//Update the current exponent of the base
count++;
}
if(count == 0) break;
/* If there is no way to multiply the "actMult"
* with squares of the base (including the base itself)
* without keeping it below the actual value,
* it is the end of the computation
*/
actMult = actMult.multiply(lastMult);
resultSet = resultSet.add(incrementor);
/* Update the product and the exponent
* */
actor = base;
incrementor = BigInteger.ONE;
//Reset the values for another iteration
}
return resultSet;
}
public static int digits(BigInteger num)
{
if(num.equals(BigInteger.ZERO)) return 1;
if(num.compareTo(BigInteger.ZERO)<0) num = num.multiply(BigInteger.valueOf(-1));
return log(BigInteger.valueOf(10),num).intValue()+1;
}
Hope this will helps.

Any easier way of finding prime numbers than this?

is there a more efficient, cleaner/elegant way of finding prime numbers than this? The code works fine, but I just wrote what seemed most logical to me and I can't figure out any other way, but to be honest it just doesn't look nice :P. I know coding isn't the most elegant of activities.
Here's my main method:
import java.util.Scanner;
public class DisplayPrimeNumbers
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("Enter an integer that you'd like the system to print the prime numbers till: ");
String input1 = scan.nextLine();
int input = Integer.parseInt(input1);
PrimeGenerator prime = new PrimeGenerator(input);
for (int i = 1; i < input ; i++)
{
if(prime.isPrime())
{
System.out.println(prime.getNextPrime());
}
}
System.out.println(1);
}
}
Here's my class:
public class PrimeGenerator
{
private int number;
public PrimeGenerator(int n)
{
number = n;
}
public int getNextPrime ()
{
return number+1;
}
public boolean isPrime()
{
for(int i = 2; i < number; i++)
{
if (number % i == 0)
{
number--;
return false;
}
}
number--;
return true;
}
}

While this question has already been answered I figured I'd provide my answer anyway in the hopes that somebody may find it useful:
You seem to be primarily concerned with 2 both elegance and efficiency. I'd also like to point out that correctness is equally important. Unless you have a special requirement to treat the number 1 as prime it is no longer considered so. You should equally consider the scenario when the user enters a prime number. You should also give some thought into the boundry condition of what numbers you print. Specifically if I enter the number 7, will your users expect it to output 5,3,2,1 or 7,5,3,2,1. While my personal tendency would be towards the latter, using clear and concise messages can make either option work.
Elegance
The perceived lack of elegance in your solution is largely due to your combination of two concepts: Prime Number Testing and Prime Number Generation.
A Prime Number Test is a (quick) method to determine whether or not a single arbitrarily chosen number is prime.
A Prime Number Generator is a way of generating a sequence of prime numbers which are often consecutive.
As your program demonstrates you can generate a consecutive sequence of prime numbers by testing each number within a given range and only selecting those which are prime! Keeping this as our basic strategy for the moment, let's figure out what the code might:
From our description earlier we said that a prime number test was a method (aka function) to determine if some arbitrarily chosen number was prime. So this method should take as input a(n arbitrarily chosen) number and return wether or not the given numbe was prime (ie: true/false). Let's see how it looks:
public interface PrimeNumberTest
{
bool isPrime(int value);
}
And incorporating your prime number test
public class BruteForcePrimeNumberTester : PrimeNumberTest
{
public bool isPrime(int value)
{
bool isPrime = true;
for(int i = 2; isPrime && i < value; i++)
{
if (value % i == 0)
{
isPrime = false;
}
}
return isPrime;
}
}
Your main program is then responsible for iterating over each number and printing only thsoe which the prime number test identifies as prime.
public static void main(String[] args)
{
//Determine the range of prime numbers to print
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("Primes smaller than what number should be printed?: ");
int max = Integer.parseInt(scan.nextLine());
//Identify how prime numbers will be tested
PrimeNumberTest test = new BruteForcePrimeNumberTest();
//Uncomment the line below if you want to include the number 1. Favour adding it here so that you may
//use re-use your prime number test elsewhere that atually needs to know if a number is prime.
//System.out.println(1);
//Print the prime numbers
for (int i = 2; i < max ; i++)
{
if(test.isPrime(i))
{
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
Your main program however should only be concerned with prime number generation. It doesn't really care about the semantics of how those primes are generated we just want the primes. It doesn't really matter if the primes were found via primality testing or any other algorithm. So we ask ourselves what does a prime number generator look like?
For starter primes are always whole numbers so we shouldn't be storing them inside floats, doubles or decimals. That leaves 32 and 64 bit integers. If you want to generate larger prime numbers then obviously you should use the long type but I'm just going to use int. In other languages we would also have to consider things like unsigned numbers too.
Now we need to find a way to return all of these numbers at once. Trees don't really make sense as we're going to be generating a consecutive sequence. Stacks don't make sense because consumers typically want the numbers in the order they were generated. Queues could be used as they fit the first-in-first-out rule. In fact if the end application had an asynchronous prime number generator (producer) and a separate asynchronous consumer this type would be ideal. For this example however I want something read-only. Essentially a prime number generator is an Iterable<int>.
public class PrimeNumberTestGenerator : Iterable<int>
{
private int limit;
private PrimalityTester tester;
public PrimeNumberTestGenerator(PrimalityTester tester, int limit)
{
this.tester = tester;
this.limit = limit;
}
private class PrimeNumberIterator : Iterator<int>
{
private int current;
public PrimeNumberIterator()
{
}
public bool hasNext()
{
return next < limit;
}
public int moveNext()
{
if (!hasNext())
{
throw new NoSuchElementException();
}
int result = next;
do
{
next++;
} while(hasNext() && !tester.isPrime(next));
return result;
}
public void remove()
{
throw new UnsupportedOperationExecution();
}
}
public Iterator<int> iterator()
{
return new PrimeNumberIterator();
}
}
So how do we tie them together?
public static void main(String[] args)
{
//Determine the range of prime numbers to print
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("Primes smaller than what number should be printed?: ");
int max = Integer.parseInt(scan.nextLine());
//Identify how prime numbers will be tested
Iterable<int> primes = new PrimeNumberTestGenerator(max, new BruteForcePrimeNumberTest());
//Print the prime numbers
foreach (int prime : primes)
{
System.out.println(prime);
}
}
Efficiency
Now the other side of your question was an efficient way of determining the prime numbers within a specified range. While a quick internet search should yield a number of different "fast" algorithms for determing a set of prime numbers that are much faste than the brute force way. One such approach is the Sieve of Atkin:
public class AtkinSieve : Iterable<int>
{
private BitSet primes;
public AtkinSieve(int limit)
{
primes = new BitSet(limit);
int root = (int)Math.sqrt(limit);
primes.set(2);
primes.set(3);
//this section can be further optimized but is the approach used by most samples
for (int x = 1; x <= root; x++)
{
for (int y = 1; y <= root; y++)
{
int number;
int remainder;
number = (4 * x * x) + (y * y);
remainder = number % 12;
if (number < limit && (remainder == 1 || remainder == 5))
{
primes.flip(number);
}
number = (3 * x * x) + (y * y);
remainder = number % 12;
if (number < limit && remainder == 7)
{
primes.flip(number);
}
if (x < y)
{
number = (3 * x * x) - (y * y);
remainder = number % 12;
if (number < limit && remainder == 11)
{
primes.flip(number);
}
}
}
}
for (int i = 5; i <= root; i++)
{
if (primes.get(i))
{
int square = i * i;
for (int j = square; j < limit; j += square)
{
primes.clear(j);
}
}
}
}
}
public class SetBitIterator : Iterator<int>
{
private BitSet bits;
private int next;
private bool isReadOnly;
public SetBitIterator(BitSet bits)
{
this.bits = bits;
next = bits.nextSetBit(0);
}
public bool hasNext()
{
return next <> -1;
}
public int moveNext()
{
int result = next;
next = bits.nextSetBit(next);
return result;
}
public void remove()
{
throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
}
}
Conveniently we can now use this prime number generator by only changing a single line in our previous main program!
Change:
//Identify how prime numbers will be tested
Iterable<int> primes = new PrimeNumberTestGenerator(max, new BruteForcePrimeNumberTest());
To:
//Identify how prime numbers will be tested
Iterable<int> primes = new AtkinSieve(max);

You can speed up your search for new primes by storing the primes that you have already found in a private collection inside the PrimeGenerator. By trying only them as potential divisors instead of your for(int i = 2; i < number; i++) loop, you will have to do much fewer divisions
You can stop the "find divisors" loop well before you reach the number: specifically, you can stop when your candidate divisor exceeds the square root of the target number. This works, because you try the candidate divisors in ascending order: if there were divisors above the square root, the result of the division would have been below the square root, so you would have already found them.
Your getNextPrime method should call isPrime internally before returning the value to the caller. Otherwise, the call of getNextPrime cannot be said to return the next prime.

First and most important thing is.... U need not to check till
i
for(int i = 2; i < number; i++)
U need to to check only untill i is less than number/2...
for(int i = 2; i < (number/2); i++)

This is how I might have written it for simplicity
public static void main(String... args) {
System.out.print("Enter an integer that you'd like the system to print the prime numbers till: ");
Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in);
int input = scan.nextInt();
if (input >= 2)
System.out.println(2);
OUTER: for (int i = 3; i <= input; i += 2) { // skip every even number
for (int j = 3; j * j <= i; j += 2) // stop when j <= sqrt(i)
if (i % j == 0)
continue OUTER;
System.out.println(i); // 99+% of the time will be spent here. ;)
}
}

Yeah there are. I don´t know if it´s the most efficient, but it is way more efficient then this one. Check the Miller Rabin test.
Even so, if you want to work with your Code, i could tell you, you should do it like this:
public boolean isPrime(int number)
{
// You should know, that every straight number can not be prime,so you can say i+= 2
if (number == 2)
return true;
if (number % 2 == 0)
{
return false;
}
for(int i = 3; i < number; i+=2)
{
if (number % i == 0)
{
number--;
return false;
}
--number;
return true;
}

Why would a PrimeGenerator produce numbers that are not prime? That's not elegant. Remove the isPrime()-method and rewrite the getNextPrime()-method so that it will always return a prime number.

As an improvement you can step by 6 not by 2 and do 2 checks in each step. See what I found here.
Basically, every number can be written as (6k, 6k + 1, 6k+2, 6k+3,
6k+4, or 6k+5). 6k is clearly not prime. Items 6k+2 to 6k+4 can be
written as 2(3k + 1), 3(2k+1), and 2(3k + 2) and therefore aren’t
prime as they’re divisible by 2 or 3.
So my point is the following. If we want to find numbers up to 1000 we can do the following thing.
int [] primes = new int[1000];
primes[0] = 2;
primes[1] = 3;
primes[2] = 5;
primes[3] = 7;
index = 4;
for(int i = 12; i < 1000; i += 6) {
boolean prime1 = true;
boolean prime2 = true;
int j = 1; // No need to divide by 2, the number is odd.
while(j < index && (prime1 || prime2)) {
if (prime1 && ((i - 1) % primes[j] == 0)) {
prime1 = false;
}
if (prime2 && ((i + 1) % primes[j] == 0)) {
prime2 = false;
}
j++;
}
if (prime1) {
primes[index++] = i - 1;
}
if (prime2) {
primes[index++] = i + 1;
}
}

Try this code mate.I wrote this. This is more elegant i think :)
**import java.util.*;
public class PrimeNum{
public static void main(String args[]){
Scanner x=new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Enter the number : ");
long y=x.nextLong();
long i;
for( i=2;i<y;i++){
long z=y%i;
if(z==0){
System.out.println(y+" is not a prime");
System.out.println(y+" Divide by "+i);
i=y;
}
}if(i==y) System.out.println("Number is prime");
if(y==1) System.out.println("Number 1 is not a prime");
}
}**

Based on my observations a basic approach would be to use this:
int prime(int up_limit){
int counter =0;
for(int i=1;i<=up_limit;i++)
{
if(up_limit%i==0)
counter++;
}
if(count==2){
return up_limit;
}