Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Factors

by gumby (Scribe)
on Jun 11, 2002 at 18:19 UTC ( #173606=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Vampire Numbers

A more efficient algorithm (of Gauss and later Kraitchik) would be to find solutions to the congruence x^2=y^2 (mod p) e.g.

38^2=3^2 (mod 1435)

It is trivial to then check if the factor (38+3 in this case) is a permutation of n/2 digits from the original number.


Comment on Factors
Re: Factors
by kvale (Monsignor) on Jun 12, 2002 at 21:01 UTC
    I think what is being suggested here is that instead of creating all possible pairs of numbers (x,y) from the digits of a number p and testing if x*y == p, it is more efficient to factor the number p first and and then test all possible factorizations to see if they are just a permuation of the digits of p.

    Finidng a quadratic residue x^2=y^2 (mod p) is useful, because then x^2 - y^2 = (x+y)*(x-y) = 0 (mod p) and so (x+y) or (x-y) may be factors of p.

    In practice, one starts with an x that has the smallest square larger than p, then computes x^2-p to see if it is a perfect square. If not, increment x and repeat.

    This is pretty fast relative to testing by division from 2 to sqrt(p), but there exist even faster methods based on the quadratic residue. The Quadratic Sieve, invented by Pomerance in 1981 is a direct derivative and the Number Field Sieve is a related method.

    Getting back to Vampire numbers, what are the relative efficiencies for a number p with 2d digits? For the first method, a naive approach generates all permutations of 2*d digits and splits each into two d-digit numbers to test. Thus each 2d digit number requires about (2*d)! == (2*log(p))! tests, or (2*log p)^(2*log p) by Stirling's approximation. For the second method, a quadratic sieve has running time of order exp(sqrt(log(p)*log(log(p)))) to find a single factor of p. So finding a single factor using QS is more efficient that testing all factors using the first method. But I don't know the running time for finding all the factors using the QS and I don't know the typical multiplier for the scaling result of the QS method.

    Anyone?

    -Mark
      The Quadratic Sieve has running time

      O(e^(sqrt(1.125ln(n)ln(ln(n)))))

      But with certain improvements (such as using Wiedemann's Gaussian Elimination algorithm over GF(2)), it's running time is given by

      O(e^(sqrt(ln(n)ln(ln(n)))))

      The Number Field Sieve is better for numbers over 100-digits and has running time

      O(e^(1.9223((ln(n))^1/3(ln(ln(n))))^2/3))

      Excuse my notation (but TeX would be overkill).

      Note: O(stuff) means the magnitude of the running time is < A * stuff for some constant A and all values of n.

      It seemed like a good idea so I cooked it up according to your description. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems quadratic residues won't account for all factors.

      Program correctly factors 24 to 4*6 and 2*12 but misses 3*8. Program finds no factors for 54.

      YuckFoo

      Update: With a little thought one can see the program will only find factor pairs that are both even or both odd. x+y * x-y = p.

      #!/usr/bin/perl use strict; my ($num) = @ARGV; my $x = int(sqrt($num)) + 1; my $y = sqrt($x * $x - $num); while ($x - $y >= 2) { if ($y == sprintf("%d", $y)) { print "Ok $num = ", $x-$y, " * ", $y+$x, "\n"; } else { print "No x = $x, y = $y\n"; } $x++; $y = sqrt($x * $x - $num); }
        Good observation! It looks like Fermat's method (the method I mentioned above) doesn't necessarily find all, or even any of the factors. It is just a heuristic. On the other hand, if you have an even number, you may extract factors of 2 until you get an odd number, in which case (x+y) and (x-y) must both be necessarily odd.

        The generalization that gumby mentioned, x^2 = y^2 (mod p) may have more sucess, but I don't know if it is exhaustive. Here is code that implements it:
        my $p = shift; my %residues; my %factors; foreach my $x (2..$p) { my $mod = ($x*$x) % $p; if (exists $residues{$mod}) { $factors{$x-$residues{$mod}}++ if $p % ($x-$residues{$mod}) == 0 +; $factors{$x+$residues{$mod}}++ if $p % ($x+$residues{$mod}) == 0 +; } else { $residues{$mod} = $x; } } foreach (sort {$a <=> $b} keys %factors) { print "$p = $_*", $p/$_, "\n"; }
        For 54, this yields
        1021% factor.pl 54 54 = 2*27 54 = 6*9 54 = 18*3 54 = 54*1
        But this code is unsatisfying because it takes longer than the simple trial by division. Thinking from a divide and conquer point of view, it is probably faster to use these methods to find a factorization, then recursively find factorizations of the factors untill all are prime.

        -Mark
        If you want to find a square root of a (mod p) use the Shanks-Tonelli algorithm.
        # Calculate the least non-negative remainder when an integer a # is divided by a positive integer b. sub mod { my ($a, $b) = @_; my $c = $a % $b; return $c if ($a >= 0); return 0 if ($c == 0); return ($c + $b); } # Calculate a^b (mod c), where a,b and c are integers and a,b>=0, c>=1 + sub mpow { my ($a, $b, $c) = @_; my ($x, $y, $z) = ($a, $b, 1); while ($y > 0) { while ($y % 2 == 0) { $y = $y / 2; $x = $x**2 % $c; } $y--; $z = mod($z * $x, $c); } return $z; } # Shanks-Tonelli algorithm to calculate y^2 = a (mod p) for p an odd p +rime sub tonelli { my ($a, $p) = @_; my ($b, $e, $g, $h, $i, $m, $n, $q, $r, $s, $t, $x, $y, $z); $q = $p - 1; $t = mpow($a, $q/2, $p); return 0 if ($t = $q); # a is a quadratic non-residue mod p $s = $q; $e = 0; while ($s % 2 == 0) { $s = $s/2; $e++; } # p-1 = s * 2^e; $x = mpow($a, ++$s/2, $p); $b = mpow($a, $s, $p); return $x if ($b == 1); $n = 2; RES: while ($n >= 2) { $t = mpow($n, $q/2, $p); last RES if ($t == $q); } continue { $n++; } # n is the least quadratic non-residue mod p $g = mpow($n, $s, $p); $r = $e; OUT: { do { $y = $b; $m = 0; IN: while ($m <= $r-1) { last IN if ($y == 1); $y = $y**2 % $p; } continue { $m++; } return $x if ($m == 0); $z = $r - $m - 1; $h = $g; for ($i = 1; $i < $z; $i++) {$h = $h**2 % $p;} $x = ($x * $h) % $p; $b = ($b * $h**2) % $p; $g = $h**2 % $p; $r = $m; } while 1; } }

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://173606]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (10)
As of 2014-07-31 17:40 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (249 votes), past polls