go/src/math/big/prime_test.go

215 lines
7 KiB
Go
Raw Normal View History

// Copyright 2016 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
// Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
// license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
package big
import (
"fmt"
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
"strings"
"testing"
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
"unicode"
)
var primes = []string{
"2",
"3",
"5",
"7",
"11",
"13756265695458089029",
"13496181268022124907",
"10953742525620032441",
"17908251027575790097",
// https://golang.org/issue/638
"18699199384836356663",
"98920366548084643601728869055592650835572950932266967461790948584315647051443",
"94560208308847015747498523884063394671606671904944666360068158221458669711639",
// https://primes.utm.edu/lists/small/small3.html
"449417999055441493994709297093108513015373787049558499205492347871729927573118262811508386655998299074566974373711472560655026288668094291699357843464363003144674940345912431129144354948751003607115263071543163",
"230975859993204150666423538988557839555560243929065415434980904258310530753006723857139742334640122533598517597674807096648905501653461687601339782814316124971547968912893214002992086353183070342498989426570593",
"5521712099665906221540423207019333379125265462121169655563495403888449493493629943498064604536961775110765377745550377067893607246020694972959780839151452457728855382113555867743022746090187341871655890805971735385789993",
"203956878356401977405765866929034577280193993314348263094772646453283062722701277632936616063144088173312372882677123879538709400158306567338328279154499698366071906766440037074217117805690872792848149112022286332144876183376326512083574821647933992961249917319836219304274280243803104015000563790123",
// ECC primes: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ladd-safecurves-02
"3618502788666131106986593281521497120414687020801267626233049500247285301239", // Curve1174: 2^251-9
"57896044618658097711785492504343953926634992332820282019728792003956564819949", // Curve25519: 2^255-19
"9850501549098619803069760025035903451269934817616361666987073351061430442874302652853566563721228910201656997576599", // E-382: 2^382-105
"42307582002575910332922579714097346549017899709713998034217522897561970639123926132812109468141778230245837569601494931472367", // Curve41417: 2^414-17
"6864797660130609714981900799081393217269435300143305409394463459185543183397656052122559640661454554977296311391480858037121987999716643812574028291115057151", // E-521: 2^521-1
}
var composites = []string{
"0",
"1",
"21284175091214687912771199898307297748211672914763848041968395774954376176754",
"6084766654921918907427900243509372380954290099172559290432744450051395395951",
"84594350493221918389213352992032324280367711247940675652888030554255915464401",
"82793403787388584738507275144194252681",
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
// Arnault, "Rabin-Miller Primality Test: Composite Numbers Which Pass It",
// Mathematics of Computation, 64(209) (January 1995), pp. 335-361.
"1195068768795265792518361315725116351898245581", // strong pseudoprime to prime bases 2 through 29
// strong pseudoprime to all prime bases up to 200
`
80383745745363949125707961434194210813883768828755814583748891752229
74273765333652186502336163960045457915042023603208766569966760987284
0439654082329287387918508691668573282677617710293896977394701670823
0428687109997439976544144845341155872450633409279022275296229414984
2306881685404326457534018329786111298960644845216191652872597534901`,
// Extra-strong Lucas pseudoprimes. https://oeis.org/A217719
"989",
"3239",
"5777",
"10877",
"27971",
"29681",
"30739",
"31631",
"39059",
"72389",
"73919",
"75077",
"100127",
"113573",
"125249",
"137549",
"137801",
"153931",
"155819",
"161027",
"162133",
"189419",
"218321",
"231703",
"249331",
"370229",
"429479",
"430127",
"459191",
"473891",
"480689",
"600059",
"621781",
"632249",
"635627",
"3673744903",
"3281593591",
"2385076987",
"2738053141",
"2009621503",
"1502682721",
"255866131",
"117987841",
"587861",
"6368689",
"8725753",
"80579735209",
"105919633",
}
func cutSpace(r rune) rune {
if unicode.IsSpace(r) {
return -1
}
return r
}
func TestProbablyPrime(t *testing.T) {
nreps := 20
if testing.Short() {
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
nreps = 3
}
for i, s := range primes {
p, _ := new(Int).SetString(s, 10)
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
if !p.ProbablyPrime(nreps) || !p.ProbablyPrime(1) || !p.ProbablyPrime(0) {
t.Errorf("#%d prime found to be non-prime (%s)", i, s)
}
}
for i, s := range composites {
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
s = strings.Map(cutSpace, s)
c, _ := new(Int).SetString(s, 10)
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
if c.ProbablyPrime(nreps) || c.ProbablyPrime(1) || c.ProbablyPrime(0) {
t.Errorf("#%d composite found to be prime (%s)", i, s)
}
}
// check that ProbablyPrime panics if n <= 0
c := NewInt(11) // a prime
for _, n := range []int{-1, 0, 1} {
func() {
defer func() {
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
if n < 0 && recover() == nil {
t.Fatalf("expected panic from ProbablyPrime(%d)", n)
}
}()
if !c.ProbablyPrime(n) {
t.Fatalf("%v should be a prime", c)
}
}()
}
}
func BenchmarkProbablyPrime(b *testing.B) {
p, _ := new(Int).SetString("203956878356401977405765866929034577280193993314348263094772646453283062722701277632936616063144088173312372882677123879538709400158306567338328279154499698366071906766440037074217117805690872792848149112022286332144876183376326512083574821647933992961249917319836219304274280243803104015000563790123", 10)
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
for _, n := range []int{0, 1, 5, 10, 20} {
b.Run(fmt.Sprintf("n=%d", n), func(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
p.ProbablyPrime(n)
}
})
}
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
b.Run("Lucas", func(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
p.abs.probablyPrimeLucas()
}
})
b.Run("MillerRabinBase2", func(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
p.abs.probablyPrimeMillerRabin(1, true)
}
})
}
func TestMillerRabinPseudoprimes(t *testing.T) {
testPseudoprimes(t, "probablyPrimeMillerRabin",
func(n nat) bool { return n.probablyPrimeMillerRabin(1, true) && !n.probablyPrimeLucas() },
// https://oeis.org/A001262
[]int{2047, 3277, 4033, 4681, 8321, 15841, 29341, 42799, 49141, 52633, 65281, 74665, 80581, 85489, 88357, 90751})
}
func TestLucasPseudoprimes(t *testing.T) {
testPseudoprimes(t, "probablyPrimeLucas",
func(n nat) bool { return n.probablyPrimeLucas() && !n.probablyPrimeMillerRabin(1, true) },
// https://oeis.org/A217719
[]int{989, 3239, 5777, 10877, 27971, 29681, 30739, 31631, 39059, 72389, 73919, 75077})
}
func testPseudoprimes(t *testing.T, name string, cond func(nat) bool, want []int) {
n := nat{1}
for i := 3; i < 100000; i += 2 {
n[0] = Word(i)
pseudo := cond(n)
if pseudo && (len(want) == 0 || i != want[0]) {
t.Errorf("%s(%v, base=2) = true, want false", name, i)
math/big: add Baillie-PSW test to (*Int).ProbablyPrime After x.ProbablyPrime(n) passes the n Miller-Rabin rounds, add a Baillie-PSW test before declaring x probably prime. Although the provable error bounds are unchanged, the empirical error bounds drop dramatically: there are no known inputs for which Baillie-PSW gives the wrong answer. For example, before this CL, big.NewInt(443*1327).ProbablyPrime(1) == true. Now it is (correctly) false. The new Baillie-PSW test is two pieces: an added Miller-Rabin round with base 2, and a so-called extra strong Lucas test. (See the references listed in prime.go for more details.) The Lucas test takes about 3.5x as long as the Miller-Rabin round, which is close to theoretical expectations. name time/op ProbablyPrime/Lucas 2.91ms ± 2% ProbablyPrime/MillerRabinBase2 850µs ± 1% ProbablyPrime/n=0 3.75ms ± 3% The speed of prime testing for a prime input does get slower: name old time/op new time/op delta ProbablyPrime/n=1 849µs ± 1% 4521µs ± 1% +432.31% (p=0.000 n=10+9) ProbablyPrime/n=5 4.31ms ± 3% 7.87ms ± 1% +82.70% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=10 8.52ms ± 3% 12.28ms ± 1% +44.11% (p=0.000 n=10+10) ProbablyPrime/n=20 16.9ms ± 2% 21.4ms ± 2% +26.35% (p=0.000 n=9+10) However, because the Baillie-PSW test is only added when the old ProbablyPrime(n) would return true, testing composites runs at the same speed as before, except in the case where the result would have been incorrect and is now correct. In particular, the most important use of this code is for generating random primes in crypto/rand. That use spends essentially all its time testing composites, so it is not slowed down by the new Baillie-PSW check: name old time/op new time/op delta Prime 104ms ±22% 111ms ±16% ~ (p=0.165 n=10+10) Thanks to Serhat Şevki Dinçer for CL 20170, which this CL builds on. Fixes #13229. Change-Id: Id26dde9b012c7637c85f2e96355d029b6382812a Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/30770 Run-TryBot: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
2016-10-10 16:52:57 -04:00
} else if !pseudo && len(want) >= 1 && i == want[0] {
t.Errorf("%s(%v, base=2) = false, want true", name, i)
}
if len(want) > 0 && i == want[0] {
want = want[1:]
}
}
if len(want) > 0 {
t.Fatalf("forgot to test %v", want)
}
}