1994-04-11 - Re: number theory
Header Data
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 907375482e5746affb8e1629179f01d803c0b9358884d5ce5ce4ffc84540185a
Message ID: <199404112346.QAA11556@servo.qualcomm.com>
Reply To: <199404112227.PAA07925@mail2.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-04-11 23:47:24 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:47:24 PDT
Raw message
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:47:24 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: number theory
In-Reply-To: <199404112227.PAA07925@mail2.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199404112346.QAA11556@servo.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
What estimates exist for the density of large Carmichael numbers, say
1000 bits long? I.e., what's the probability of running into one by
accident when generating primes by the usual technique of picking a
random starting point and searching up until you find a number that
passes seive or small factor tests and a few iterations of Fermat's
test? Are other probability tests like Miller-Rabin any more provably
likely to detect these?
I'm currently playing with the Miller-Rabin test. Boy, is modular
exponentiation a pig (at least the routine in RSAREF).
Phil
Thread
Return to April 1994
- Return to “catalyst-remailer@netcom.com”
- Return to “hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)”
- Return to “Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>”
Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”
- 1994-04-11 (Mon, 11 Apr 94 15:26:10 PDT) - number theory number theory - catalyst-remailer@netcom.com
- 1994-04-11 (Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:47:24 PDT) - Re: number theory - Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
- 1994-04-12 (Tue, 12 Apr 94 10:02:46 PDT) - number theory - hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
- 1994-04-12 (Mon, 11 Apr 94 17:06:09 PDT) - “Rendezvous with Ramanujan” - tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
- 1994-04-12 (Tue, 12 Apr 94 09:54:45 PDT) - number theory - hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
- 1994-04-11 (Mon, 11 Apr 94 16:47:24 PDT) - Re: number theory - Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>