2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
// 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"
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
"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"
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var primes = []string{
|
|
|
|
|
"2",
|
|
|
|
|
"3",
|
|
|
|
|
"5",
|
|
|
|
|
"7",
|
|
|
|
|
"11",
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"13756265695458089029",
|
|
|
|
|
"13496181268022124907",
|
|
|
|
|
"10953742525620032441",
|
|
|
|
|
"17908251027575790097",
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// https://golang.org/issue/638
|
|
|
|
|
"18699199384836356663",
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"98920366548084643601728869055592650835572950932266967461790948584315647051443",
|
|
|
|
|
"94560208308847015747498523884063394671606671904944666360068158221458669711639",
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-01 17:29:59 -03:00
|
|
|
// https://primes.utm.edu/lists/small/small3.html
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
"449417999055441493994709297093108513015373787049558499205492347871729927573118262811508386655998299074566974373711472560655026288668094291699357843464363003144674940345912431129144354948751003607115263071543163",
|
|
|
|
|
"230975859993204150666423538988557839555560243929065415434980904258310530753006723857139742334640122533598517597674807096648905501653461687601339782814316124971547968912893214002992086353183070342498989426570593",
|
|
|
|
|
"5521712099665906221540423207019333379125265462121169655563495403888449493493629943498064604536961775110765377745550377067893607246020694972959780839151452457728855382113555867743022746090187341871655890805971735385789993",
|
|
|
|
|
"203956878356401977405765866929034577280193993314348263094772646453283062722701277632936616063144088173312372882677123879538709400158306567338328279154499698366071906766440037074217117805690872792848149112022286332144876183376326512083574821647933992961249917319836219304274280243803104015000563790123",
|
|
|
|
|
|
2018-06-01 17:29:59 -03:00
|
|
|
// ECC primes: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ladd-safecurves-02
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
"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
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
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) {
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
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)
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
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) {
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
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 {
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
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) {
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
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)
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
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]) {
|
2017-02-12 22:56:50 -08:00
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2016-10-10 16:03:13 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|