1994-04-12 - more number theorymore number theory

Header Data

From: nobody@shell.portal.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2e6cbfd22b343ea6d83ff341088c02ac61f79653530d8b8d994e11284be7e377
Message ID: <199404120257.TAA26115@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-12 02:56:13 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 19:56:13 PDT

Raw message

From: nobody@shell.portal.com
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 19:56:13 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: more number theorymore number theory
Message-ID: <199404120257.TAA26115@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> What estimates exist for the density of large Carmichael numbers,
> say 1000 bits long?

I'm not sure off hand - maybe Ray can try to check the source of his

Carmichael numbers must be square free and the product of at least
three primes... I seem to remember a formula for the distribution of
square free integers, but can't quite remember it...

> test? Are other probability tests like Miller-Rabin any more
> provably likely to detect these?

Well Phil, you are in luck!  Miller-Rabin isn't fooled by Carmichael
numbers.  There still is a chance for failure, but it doesn't depend
on the input (i.e. there are no bad inputs for Miller-Rabin like there
are for pseudoprime testing).  Failure depends on how many iterations
you perform (n iterations = 2^-n chance of failure) and the values of
the base you choose.

For example, in Miller-Rabin, the Carmichael number 561 is exposed to
be composite by choosing a base of 7.

I'm familiar with two other primality testing algorithms (I'm no
number theory wiz so there are probably more): Lucas' and Lehmer's.
Well, Lehmer's method is a modification of Lucas' method.  They both
are slow, but have the advantage of being true.

Version: 2.3a