Large Prime NumbersDate: 12/17/97 at 13:55:22 From: Lynne & Dave Ware Subject: Prime Numbers To the Math Swat Team: I believe that I read somewhere (Ivars Pederson [spelling?], I think) that it is possible to determine if a very large number is prime using a simple procedure. (But not to determine its factors). It didn't say how this is done. If this is true, what is the algorithm? Thanks for your consideration. Dave Ware Date: 12/17/97 at 15:50:01 From: Doctor Rob Subject: Re: Prime Numbers Good question! The person is probably Ivars Peterson, who is a popular science writer. The situation is a bit more complicated than you remember. The fact is that the simple procedure does not provide a proof of primality, but may provide a proof of compositeness. It is based on Fermat's Little Theorem, which says: Theorem: If p is a prime number, a is an integer, and p is not a divisor of a, then p is a divisor of a^(p-1) - 1. Given a number N we want to test, pick any old a, and find the greatest common divisor of a and N, GCD(a,N). If this is not 1, then it is a factor of N, and N is composite. If it is 1, then compute the remainder r of a^(N-1) when divided by N. If r is not 1, then by Fermat's Little Theorem, N cannot be prime, so is composite. This gives the proof of compositeness. By the way, you might as well choose 1 < a < N-1, since a and a-N will give the same value of r, and since a = 1 or N-1 will always give r = 1. How to compute the remainder r? If N is even moderately large, computing a^(N-1) and then dividing by N will be a bad idea, since the number a^(N-1) will have many, many digits. The trick is to divide by N and keep only the remainder at all intermediate steps. It may not be obvious that this works, but it does. If N = 67, N-1 = 66, you might compute a^66 by doing 65 multiplications. After each one, divide by 67 and keep only the remainder. Better than doing a^66 by 65 multiplications (and 65 divisions by N), you can shortcut the computation by the following trick: a^66 = (a^33)^2, a^33 = a*a^32, a^32 = (a^16)^2, a^16 = (a^8)^2, a^8 = (a^4)^2, a^4 = (a^2)^2, a^2 = a*a. Working from the last equation backwards, you will need only 7 multiplications (and 7 divisions by N). If r = 1, then what can we say? All prime numbers will give r = 1, but there are a few composite numbers which will do so, too. For example, if a = 2, N = 341 = 11*31 is composite, but r = 1. Such N's are called Fermat pseudoprimes with respect to base a. 341 is a Fermat pseudoprime with respect to base 2. It turns out that Fermat pseudoprimes with respect to any fixed base are uncommon. The chance of picking one at random from some large set of N's is very small. Thus, in some sense, which is again a complicated matter, if you get r = 1, N is "probably" prime. A tactic you could use if you get r = 1 is to pick another base a and repeat the calculation. If you get r = 1 again, try still another a. Continue this until you either find a proof that N is composite, or you decide that you couldn't possibly be unlucky enough to have an N which is a Fermat pseudoprime to all the bases you used. Then declare the number to be prime, and you will be wrong only rarely. A flaw with the above tactic is that there exist numbers called Carmichael numbers, for which, for all bases a such that N passes the GCD test, r will equal 1. The smallest one is 561 = 3*11*17. Every base a not divisible by 3, 11, or 17 will give r = 1. These are even rarer than Fermat pseudoprimes with respect to a given base a, but there are known to be infinitely many. If you happened to choose one of these, you might try very many bases, getting r = 1 over and over, then declare the number prime, and be wrong. There are variations of the above method which get rid of the last flaw, give you proofs of compositeness, but only probabilistic statements about primality. If you need to know more about them, write again. If you want a true proof of primality, there are more complicated methods which will do this, but I am quite sure the above is what you remember reading about. The complicated methods can be proven to run on a computer in a relatively short time, and produce a certificate of primality which can be checked even faster. They could not, however, be termed "simple" in most senses of the word! -Doctor Rob, The Math Forum Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ Date: 12/18/97 at 10:36:38 From: Lynne & Dave Ware Subject: Follow up question on testing for primes Doctor Rob: Thank you for your quick answer to my question. I think I was looking for the true test of primality you mentioned in your last paragraph. I think Ivars Peterson did cover some of the theory on Fermat's little theorem. I also remember something about a method he only mentioned that could be run on a computer. How can I program my computer to do this complicated method? I am working on a prime number program (in Pascal) that uses the sieve method. I saw an answer on your web site about testing for primes. I go further in simplification by only testing with prime numbers less than the square of the numbers and only odd numbers. I want to be able to cross check on its operation by using a check for primes. The "simple method" looks too messy for large numbers as I am trying to push my program to work up to 10 billion. Dave Ware Date: 12/18/97 at 13:22:02 From: Doctor Rob Subject: Re: Follow up question on testing for primes If you think the "simple method" is too messy for large numbers, then you will really hate the more sophisticated ones. They are too complicated to go into via e-mail, but I will point you to a reference. See Henri Cohen, _A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory_, Springer-Verlag, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 138, Chapter 9. You should be able to find a copy in any medium-to-large university library, and probably other places. You will need a background in either algebraic number theory, or the theory of elliptic curves, to understand why the algorithms work, but only a knowledge of programming to implement them. Here is another idea. Since your range is only up to 10^10 (as opposed to 10^1000[!!]), here is an alternative. Use the Strong Compositeness Test (below) with bases 2, 3, 5, and 7. If it fails all of these, and is not equal to 3215031751, then it is prime. The Strong Compositeness Test with Base a: To test a number N for compositeness: 1. If GCD(a,N) > 1, stop and declare that N is composite. 2. Write N - 1 = 2^s*d, where d is odd. 3. Compute R, the remainder of a^d when divided by N. (Do this as described in the last message.) 4. If R = 1, stop and declare failure. 5. For i = 0, 1, ..., s-1, do the following: a. If R = N-1, stop and declare failure. b. Replace R with the remainder of R^2 when divided by N. c. If R = 1, stop and declare that N is composite. 6. Stop and declare N composite. A number which fails the Strong Compositeness Test with Base a, yet is composite, is called a "strong pseudoprime with respect to base a." Every strong pseudoprime is a Fermat pseudoprime to the same base, but the reverse is false. The smallest strong pseudoprime with respect to base 2 is 2047. Theorem: The only number less than 2.5*10^10 which is a strong pseudoprime with respect to bases 2, 3, 5, and 7, is 3215031751. -Doctor Rob, The Math Forum Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/ |
Search the Dr. Math Library: |
[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]
Ask Dr. Math^{TM}
© 1994-2015 The Math Forum
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/