![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Nov 2007
home
52 Posts |
I am posting this here because I think there might be a serious flaw with this technique. Given composite N, generator g, and prime q. find a generator g that is a primitive root to a composite N and some prime q. raise the generator to the power N. now (g^N) mod N = g^(N-totient(N)) mod N = k. Then mod the expression to a prime q so that g^(x mod totient(q)) mod q = k mod q. Now just solve for x and totient(N)= N-x Here is an example: (I am making these values and results up, they are not correct ) base=2, n=77,q=13. 2^77 mod 77 = 2^17 mod 77 = 19. 2^(17 mod 12)=19 mod 13=6. find the exponent by solving discrete logarithm 2^x mod 13 = 6. So the solution will be something like 5 or 5+12*x and one of the exponents should be correct (not in this case, I was to lazy to look up the correct calculations because my calculator died :(
Last fiddled with by vector on 2007-11-20 at 03:24 |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Nov 2003
11101001001002 Posts |
Quote:
Composites do not have primitive roots. I did not read the rest of your post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Nov 2007
home
52 Posts |
I never knew that a composite modulus does not have any primitive roots.
![]() Maybe this can be used to make a new deterministic primality test. (A prime is a provable prime if there is a primitive root mod the probable prime). Anyway, I figured out that what was happening was just coincidence that occurs commonly for small numbers but almost never happens for larger moduli. So this discrete logarithm mod N lift to discrete logarithm mod P would never work. Last fiddled with by vector on 2007-11-20 at 18:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
1001101000112 Posts |
Sorry about that, but this is the exact basis for classical (you might almost say: ancient) deterministic primality tests that don't divide by all primes <= sqrt(P). I.e. for the original P-1 primality test, you factor P-1 into primes p, then look for an element a so that a^(P-1) == 1 (mod P) but a^((P-1)/p) != 1 (mod P). This proves that p divides the order of a. If you do it for all p|P-1, you know the ord(a) = P-1, so it is a generator, so P is prime. The Lucas-Lehmer tests works similarly, except you work in an extension ring and check that an element has order P+1 iff P=Mp is prime. The arithmetic in the extension ring is hidden by the use of Lucas sequences, so it still uses only arithmetic in Z/PZ. Alex |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Help with discrete logarithm | pinnn | Information & Answers | 43 | 2021-03-18 15:40 |
| GDLOG discrete logarithm usage example | xkyve | Information & Answers | 38 | 2014-07-14 15:59 |
| Discrete logarithm software | Unregistered | Information & Answers | 39 | 2012-04-27 20:08 |
| Solving discrete logarithm in 2 variables | Coffenator | Information & Answers | 16 | 2007-10-03 21:01 |
| Discrete logarithm mod Mersenne primes? | Unregistered | Information & Answers | 0 | 2006-08-27 15:32 |