I've been attempting to generate large prime numbers with Python for RSA encryption for the past week and a half, with no luck. The Fermat primality test is infeasible at scales of 512 bits, and I can't quite wrap my head around Miller-Rabin. (I'm 13) All the scripts online seem to work with versions of Python below the one I'm using. What should I do to generate massive primes? (Yes, probabilistic primes are fine.)
Here is my Miller-Rabin prime checker:
def isPrime(n, k=5): # miller-rabin
from random import randint
if n < 2: return False
for p in [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29]:
if n % p == 0: return n == p
s, d = 0, n-1
while d % 2 == 0:
s, d = s+1, d/2
for i in range(k):
x = pow(randint(2, n-1), d, n)
if x == 1 or x == n-1: continue
for r in range(1, s):
x = (x * x) % n
if x == 1: return False
if x == n-1: break
else: return False
return True
If you want a guaranteed prime (not a probable prime), that's not very much harder to arrange. See my blog for a method due to Pocklington.
Related
From my understanding, the fermat's primality test should fail for all carmichael numbers. This seems to identify prime numbers fine, but all the carmichael numbers that I tested returned 'composite' for high k values, which is unexpected.
Can anyone see what mistake I made?
def mod_exp(x, y, N):
if y == 0:
return 1
z = mod_exp(x, y//2, N)
if y % 2 == 0:
return z*z % N
else:
return x * z*z % N
def fermat(N,k):
isPrime = 'prime'
for i in range(k):
a = random.randint(1, N - 1)
if mod_exp(a, N - 1, N) != 1:
isPrime = 'composite'
return isPrime
Suppose that gcd(e,m) = g. Find integer d such that (e x d) = g mod m
Where m and e are greater than or equal to 1.
The following problem seems to be solvable algebraically but I've tried doing it and it give me an integer number. Sometimes, the solution for d is an integer and sometimes it isn't. How can I approach this problem?
d can be computed with the extended euklidean algorithm, see e.g. here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Euclidean_algorithm
The a,b on that page are your e,m, and your d will be the x.
Perhaps you are assuming that both e and m are integers, but the problem allows them to be non-integers? There is only one case that gives an integer solution when both e and m are integers.
Why strictly integer output is not a reasonable outcome if e != m:
When you look at a fraction like 3/7 say, and refer to its denominator as the numerator's "divisor", this is a loose sense of the word from a classical math-y perspective. When you talk about the gcd (greatest common divisor), the "d" refers to an integer that divides the numerator (an integer) evenly, resulting in another integer: 4 is a divisor of 8, because 8/4 = 2 and 2 is an integer. A computer science or discrete mathematics perspective might frame a divisor as a number d that for a given number a gives 0 when we take a % d (a mod d for discrete math). Can you see that the absolute value of a divisor can't exceed the absolute value of the numerator? If it did, you would get pieces of pie, instead of whole pies - example:
4 % a = 0 for a in Z (Z being the set of integers) while |a| <= 4 (in math-y notation, that set is: {a ∈ Z : |a| <= 4}), but
4 % a != 0 for a in Z while |a| > 4 (math-y: {a ∈ Z : |a| > 4}
), because when we divide 4 by stuff bigger than it, like 5, we get fractions (i.e. |4/a| < 1 when |a| > 4). Don't worry too much about the absolute value stuff if it throws you off - it is there to account for working with negative numbers since they are integers as well.
So, even the "greatest" of divisors for any given integer will be smaller than the integer. Otherwise it's not a divisor (see above, or Wikipedia on divisors).
Look at gcd(e, m) = g:
By the definition of % (mod for math people), for any two numbers number1 and number2, number1 % number2 never makes number1 bigger: number1 % number2 <= number1.
So substitute: (e * d) = g % m --> (e * d) <= g
By the paragraphs above and definition of gcd being a divisor of both e and m: g <= e, m.
To make (e * d) <= g such that d, g are both integers, knowing that g <= e since g is a divisor of e, we have to make the left side smaller to match g. You can only make an integer smaller with multiplcation if the other multipland is 0 or a fraction. The problem specifies that d is an integer, so we one case that works - the d = 0 case - and infinitely many that give a contradiction - contradiction that e, m, and d all be integers.
If e == m:
This is the d = 0 case:
If e == m, then gcd(e, m) = e = m - example: greatest common divisor of 3 and 3 is 3
Then (e * d) = g % m is (e * d) = m % m and m % m = 0 so (e * d) = 0 implying d = 0
How to code a function that will find d when either of e or m might be NON-integer:
A lot of divisor problems are done iteratively, like "find the gcd" or "find a prime number". That works in part because those problems deal strictly with integers, which are countable. With this problem, we need to allow e or m to be non-integer in order to have a solution for cases other than e = m. The set of rational numbers is NOT countable, however, so an iterative solution would eventually make your program crash. With this problem, you really just want a formula, and possibly some cases. You might set it up like this:
If e == m
return 0 # since (e * d) = m % m -> d = 0
Else
return g / e
Lastly:
Another thing that might be useful depending on what you do with this problem is the fact that the right-hand-side is always either g or 0, because g <= m since g is a divisor of m (see all the stuff above). In the cases where g < m, g % m = g. In the case where g == m, g % m = 0.
The #asp answer with the link to the Wikipedia page on the Euclidean Algorithm is good.
The #aidenhjj comment about trying the math-specific version of StackOverflow is good.
In case this is for a math class and you aren't used to coding: <=, >=, ==, and != are computer speak for ≤, ≥, "are equal", and "not equal" respectively.
Good luck.
(note: not the same as this other question since the OP never explicitly specified rounding towards 0 or -Infinity)
JLS 15.17.2 says that integer division rounds towards zero. If I want floor()-like behavior for positive divisors (I don't care about the behavior for negative divisors), what's the simplest way to achieve this that is numerically correct for all inputs?
int ifloor(int n, int d)
{
/* returns q such that n = d*q + r where 0 <= r < d
* for all integer n, d where d > 0
*
* d = 0 should have the same behavior as `n/d`
*
* nice-to-have behaviors for d < 0:
* option (a). same as above:
* returns q such that n = d*q + r where 0 <= r < -d
* option (b). rounds towards +infinity:
* returns q such that n = d*q + r where d < r <= 0
*/
}
long lfloor(long n, long d)
{
/* same behavior as ifloor, except for long integers */
}
(update: I want to have a solution both for int and long arithmetic.)
If you can use third-party libraries, Guava has this: IntMath.divide(int, int, RoundingMode.FLOOR) and LongMath.divide(int, int, RoundingMode.FLOOR). (Disclosure: I contribute to Guava.)
If you don't want to use a third-party library for this, you can still look at the implementation.
(I'm doing everything for longs since the answer for ints is the same, just substitute int for every long and Integer for every Long.)
You could just Math.floor a double division result, otherwise...
Original answer:
return n/d - ( ( n % d != 0 ) && ( (n<0) ^ (d<0) ) ? 1 : 0 );
Optimized answer:
public static long lfloordiv( long n, long d ) {
long q = n/d;
if( q*d == n ) return q;
return q - ((n^d) >>> (Long.SIZE-1));
}
(For completeness, using a BigDecimal with a ROUND_FLOOR rounding mode is also an option.)
New edit: Now I'm just trying to see how far it can be optimized for fun. Using Mark's answer the best I have so far is:
public static long lfloordiv2( long n, long d ){
if( d >= 0 ){
n = -n;
d = -d;
}
long tweak = (n >>> (Long.SIZE-1) ) - 1;
return (n + tweak) / d + tweak;
}
(Uses cheaper operations than the above, but slightly longer bytecode (29 vs. 26)).
There's a rather neat formula for this that works when n < 0 and d > 0: take the bitwise complement of n, do the division, and then take the bitwise complement of the result.
int ifloordiv(int n, int d)
{
if (n >= 0)
return n / d;
else
return ~(~n / d);
}
For the remainder, a similar construction works (compatible with ifloordiv in the sense that the usual invariant ifloordiv(n, d) * d + ifloormod(n, d) == n is satisfied) giving a result that's always in the range [0, d).
int ifloormod(int n, int d)
{
if (n >= 0)
return n % d;
else
return d + ~(~n % d);
}
For negative divisors, the formulas aren't quite so neat. Here are expanded versions of ifloordiv and ifloormod that follow your 'nice-to-have' behavior option (b) for negative divisors.
int ifloordiv(int n, int d)
{
if (d >= 0)
return n >= 0 ? n / d : ~(~n / d);
else
return n <= 0 ? n / d : (n - 1) / d - 1;
}
int ifloormod(int n, int d)
{
if (d >= 0)
return n >= 0 ? n % d : d + ~(~n % d);
else
return n <= 0 ? n % d : d + 1 + (n - 1) % d;
}
For d < 0, there's an unavoidable problem case when d == -1 and n is Integer.MIN_VALUE, since then the mathematical result overflows the type. In that case, the formula above returns the wrapped result, just as the usual Java division does. As far as I'm aware, this is the only corner case where we silently get 'wrong' results.
return BigDecimal.valueOf(n).divide(BigDecimal.valueOf(d), RoundingMode.FLOOR).longValue();
i have a n-dimensional matrix from which i want the n-2 -dimensional submatrix
For example:
if i have a matrix A that is 6x5x4x3x2, i want to get for example the matrix
B = A(1,:,:,:,2);
This is easy if the amount of dimensions is fixed, but how can i do this for variable dimensions without having to handle a specific case for each number of dimensions?
Bad:
n = length(size(A));
if (n == 2)
B = A(1,2)
else if (n == 3)
B = A(1,:,2);
else if (n == 4)
B = A(1,:,:,2);
else if (n == 5)
B = A (1,:,:,:,2);
...
Good:
B=A(1,<some cool operator/expression>,2);
Thanks to the link provided in the comment, i was able to solve it like this:
n = ndim(A);
if (n <= 2)
B = A(1,2);
else
colons = repmat({':'},[1 n-2]);
B = A(1,colons{:},2);
I am trying to write a program in matlab, such that the sum of the reciprocals of the n first prime numbers exceeds a given value k. To clearify, I am trying to make a function
SumPrime(k)
And it is supposed to return an integer n such that
\sum_{i=1}^{n} 1/p_i > k
sum of primes and reciprocals of them and plot in matlab?
I tried looking here, but this does not quite answer my question. Neither did the command
sumInversePrimes = sum(1./primes(n));
Here is my attempt. First i define a function for finding the n`th prime number.
function Y = NthPrime(n)
if n==1
Y = 2;
return
end
if n < 1 || round(n)~=n
return
end
j = 2;
u = 0;
while u < n
T = primes(j);
u = numel(T);
j = 1 + j;
end
Y = T(numel(T));
After doing this (lengthy?) code for finding the n`th prime number, the rest is a cakewalk.
function Y = E(u)
sum = 0
n = 0
while sum < u
n = n + 1
sum = sum + 1/( NthPrime(n) )
end
Y = n;
Return the proper values. This somewhat works. Alas it is very slow, and I guess this is very bad code. I have merely started learning coding in matlab, Could someone please help me either write a better code or optimize mine ?
XOXOXOX
Nebby
Here's how to precompute the sums then find the first that exceeds a threshold:
>> p = primes(1000);
>> cs = cumsum(1./p);
>> find(cs > 1.8, 1)
ans = 25