Results 1 
8 of
8
The Generation of Random Numbers That Are Probably Prime
 Journal of Cryptology
, 1988
"... In this paper we make two observations on Rabin's probabilistic primality test. The first is a provocative reason why Rabin's test is so good. It turned out that a single iteration has a nonnegligible probability of failing _only_ on composite numbers that can actually be split in expected ..."
Abstract

Cited by 23 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper we make two observations on Rabin's probabilistic primality test. The first is a provocative reason why Rabin's test is so good. It turned out that a single iteration has a nonnegligible probability of failing _only_ on composite numbers that can actually be split in expected polynomial time. Therefore, factoring would be easy if Rabin's test systematically failed with a 25% probability on each composite integer (which, of course, it does not). The second observation is more fundamental because is it _not_ restricted to primality testing: it has consequences for the entire field of probabilistic algorithms. The failure probability when using a probabilistic algorithm for the purpose of testing some property is compared with that when using it for the purpose of obtaining a random element hopefully having this property. More specifically, we investigate the question of how reliable Rabin's test is when used to _generate_ a random integer that is probably prime, rather than to _test_ a specific integer for primality.
Key words: factorization, false witnesses, primality testing, probabilistic algorithms, Rabin's test.
Uniform distribution of fractional parts related to pseudoprimes
, 2005
"... We estimate exponential sums with the Fermatlike quotients fg(n) = gn−1 − 1 n and hg(n) = gn−1 − 1 P(n) where g and n are positive integers, n is composite, and P(n) is the largest prime factor of n. Clearly, both fg(n) and hg(n) are integers if n is a Fermat pseudoprime to base g, and if n is a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We estimate exponential sums with the Fermatlike quotients fg(n) = gn−1 − 1 n and hg(n) = gn−1 − 1 P(n) where g and n are positive integers, n is composite, and P(n) is the largest prime factor of n. Clearly, both fg(n) and hg(n) are integers if n is a Fermat pseudoprime to base g, and if n is a Carmichael number this is true for all g coprime to n. Nevertheless, our bounds imply that the fractional parts {fg(n)} and {hg(n)} are uniformly distributed, on average over g for fg(n), and individually for hg(n). We also obtain similar results with the functions ˜ fg(n) = gfg(n) and ˜ hg(n) = ghg(n). AMS Subject Classification: 11L07, 11N37, 11N60 1
L. EULER [9] Methods of Primality Testing
"... Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the human mind will never penetrate. ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the human mind will never penetrate.
Primality Testing, Integer Factorization, and Discrete Logarithms
, 2000
"... this paper is to survey some historical and modern methods for primality testing, integer factorization, and the discrete logarithm problem, and point out some theoretical questions related to the algorithms. Our main concern will be the rigourosity of the running time bounds and the error estimates ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
this paper is to survey some historical and modern methods for primality testing, integer factorization, and the discrete logarithm problem, and point out some theoretical questions related to the algorithms. Our main concern will be the rigourosity of the running time bounds and the error estimates of the algorithms, as well as the analysis of the algorithms on the average (over the inputs).