reduced TCD talk 9th Feb 2005.html

Some remarks about computation times

It is commonly known amongst number theorists that

modular exponentiation (the (important) computation of mod n ) can be performed quickly, while
factorial modular computation ( a ! mod n ) is (currently) relatively slow; Richard Crandall ( Topics in Advanced Scientific Computation , Springer-Verlag (1996)) remarks:

" Before we investigate ways to compute it is worth noting that factorial evaluation must in general be problematic. One way to see this is, if we wanted to factor some number N, and if it were easy to find massive factorials M ! mod N where M is say of order or even some lower but significant power of N , the one could simply take the GCD of the factorial with N routinely to produce factors of N . On the belief that factorisation is intrinsically difficult, it must follow that so, too is factorial evaluation. Another way to say this is, a factorial M! contains some information about every integer not exceeding M ."

A hasty demonstration . The following computes the remainder that leaves on division by n , for the assigned values of a , b and n. A word of warning , though, for the uninitiated: it is done - not by first calculating the actual value of and then dividing by n (that would have been attempted had one (foolishly) used the command a^b mod n ) - but rather by using congruence technique together with the square and multiply method (that method is invoked with the use of '&' in the command a&^b mod n ).

> a :=
599999999999999999999999999777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777:
b := 38888888888888866666666666664444444444444444444444333333333333300000000000999999999999:
n := 766666666666666666666888888888888888888888555555555555555555555555555555555555557777777778888888888888888855555555555555544444444444444444444444444444444444321:
a&^b mod n;

>

Suppose, now, that one wanted to compute the remainder that M ! leaves on division by N (the type of computation of which Richard Crandall speaks above, and which - as you will see - is at the heart of this talk...) for given M and N .

(Incidentally, although modular exponentiation may be performed extremely quickly, if one makes the modulus 'n' be very large then the time taken becomes the greater... In 2002, just before I was to give a talk in Dallas on my 'Fermat 6' work, I wrote to Richard Crandall to ask his estimate for how long it would take to test the possible primality of the 31st Fermat number , which is entirely decided (using P�pin's theorem) by the modular exponentiation computation of mod n , with

By P�pin's theorem, if (mod ) then is prime.

(Note in passing. At that time was the smallest Fermat number whose status was unknown: all being prime, while every one of was known to be composite. Later that year a factor of was found by Kruppa and Forbes - it was the 23-digit prime (5463561471303* +1) - and now is the smallest Fermat number of unknown status. Anyone interested in reading more about Fermat numbers might like to access the Fermat Record Number corner of my website.)

Richard (who perhaps knows more than anyone about such matters) responded that it would take more than years... )

____________________

Here is a simple procedure for performing factorial modular reductions:

> fact_rem := proc(M, N) local r, k;
r := 1; for k from 2 to M do
r := k*r mod N od; r; end:

This computes the remainder 8! leaves on division by 17:

> fact_rem(8, 17);

This computes the remainder 20! leaves on division by (Jacobi prime) 61:

> fact_rem(20, 61);

This computes the remainder 6000! leaves on division by (prime) 8191:

> fact_rem(6000, 8191);

>

Time (tongue-in-cheek) note #1. It took as long as 80.5 hours on a 2.8GHz Pentium 4 merely to verify (using straightforward modular reduction) that p = 18711862657 satisfies the congruence (mod p ), while the identification of that prime, as a possible candidate for satisfying (mod p ), took only a matter of minutes using the alpha-criterion. Another verification, using an intermediary stage criterion that presented itself to me - what I later call the cubes-odd-square criterion - took only a microsecond.

Roughly how long would it have taken to verify that p = 16426761041360671 satisfies (mod p ), using modular reduction? Over 8000 years:

> floor(16426761041360671/18711862657);

> hours := (16426761041360671/18711862657)*(80.5);

> years := floor(hours/(24*365));

>

Time (tongue-in-cheek) note #2. Roughly how long does/would it take (on a Pentium of known speed) to verify (using step-by-step modular reduction) that a given prime p = 1 (mod 3) satisfies the congruence

(mod p ) ... (1)

Time (comparison) note . It took as long as 80.5 hours (using a 2.8GHz Pentium) to verify that p = 18711862657 satisfies (1), while the identification of that prime, as a possible candidate for satisfying (1) took only a matter of minutes using the alpha-criterion. A verification, using the cubes-odd-square criterion, took only a microsecond.

Time (crude under) estimates . Suppose p and q are primes (both 1 mod 3), and that q ~ mp (think of m as a multiplier, which in usage will be on the large side). Suppose also that the computation of mod p takes time t ; then the computation of mod q will take time mt , at least.

Simple demonstration (on a 1.7GHz) . I will demonstrate using two primes p = 1000003 and q = 2000029, the first after 1 and 2 million respectively:

> for p from 10^6 by 3 do
if isprime(p) then print(p); break; fi; od;

> for q from (2*10^6+2) by 3 do
if isprime(q) then print(q); break; fi; od;

> P[1,3] := proc(p) local r, k; r := 1;
for k from 2 to (p-1)/3 do
r := mods(r*k, p) od; r; end:

> p := 1000003: P[1,3](p); # took 2.2 secs

> q := 2000029: P[1,3](q); # took 4.4 secs

One further simple demonstration (on a 1.7GHz) . I will demonstrate using two primes p = 10000141 and q = 20000023, the first after 10 and 20 million respectively:

> for p from 10^7 by 3 do
if isprime(p) then print(p); break; fi; od;

> for q from (2*10^7+2) by 3 do
if isprime(q) then print(q); break; fi; od;

> p := 10000141: P[1,3](p); # took 23.9 secs

> q := 20000023: P[1,3](q); # took 49.1 secs

>

8000+ years . I came upon prime p = 16426761041360671 (a prime value of ), while searching for primes p such that ( ) has a large number (10, 11, 12, ... ) of distinct prime factors (apart from the singleton 3).

(Its details:

24665736, 16426761041360671, (2)(3)(5)(7)(11)(13)(17)(19)(23)(41)(59)(61)(499), [12]

It was actually the first instance of a '[12]' (i.e., 13 primes - including the '3' - in the prime factorisation of )).

How long it would take - for comparison with the 2.8GHz, crudely underestimated - to verify (1) for that p , using modular reduction; it comes out at ~ 8067 years:

>

> p1 := 18711862657; # the 80.5 hours base example

> p2 := 16426761041360671;

> m2_1 := floor(p2/p1); # how much longer

> hours2 := (m2_1)*(80.5);

> years2 := floor(hours2/(24*365));

>

Thus p2 = 16426761041360671 would take a minimum of 8067 years.

Finally, just for fun, I wanted to find a prime p3 that would take at least the (commonly quoted) age of the universe to verify (1), that prime being found using (itself a proof), or further verification using the cube-odd square test.