Talk:Integer factorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Correction of runtime 2 Diffie-Hellman problem and integer factorization 3 Blum Blum Shub 4 Significant fields 5 Article name 6 External link 7 Unnecessary article? 8 Prime factorization is in P 9 Factorization record 10 Deleting unsourced paragraph 11 Integer factoring (feedback) 12 factor using ti-84 13 Correction needed? 14 Merge 15 Trivial example 16 Hardness/difficulty 17 Section related to music to be deleted, and title of article slightly too general for intended subject 18 What is known 19 On section "Integer factorization in polynomial time" 20 One as an empty product of primes

[edit] Correction of runtime

See GNFS wiki for accurate runtime

[edit] Diffie-Hellman problem and integer factorization

I thought Diffie-Hellman required calculating logarithms on a finite field, not factorisation, or are the problems somehow related? User:Hagedis

Yes Diffie-Hellman is discrete logarithm. So is DSA. Discrete logarithm for integers modulo a prime appears to be related somehow it factorisation, but a factorisation breakthrough is not guaranteed to solve discrete logarithm. The current champion method of both problems is the Number Field Seive, and there are only minor differences between the version that does factors and the version that does discrete logarithm. Also Shor's algorithm (which works on proposed quantum computers: no-one knows if they can actually be built large enough to be useful) would blow both problems out of the water.

But there is no guarantee (as far as we know at the moment) that a breakthrough factoring algorithm would also do discrete logarithm. I'm not sure if a breakthrough discrete log method is guaranteed to do factoring as well. Several otherwise reputable people have claimed that it would, but i have never seen a proof, or a cite of one.

User:203.37.81.xxx

Yes, that's right. I wasn't thinking when I typed the list. I'll remove the DH/DSS entries. --LC

I think I got one property by which I can find prime number series, but in that series, we have to remove some number by using property which is used to make that series. If any one think that this is singnificant point please mail me at kgujarat@usc.edu.

---

To summarize the connection between factoring and discrete logs, Let n=pq where p, q are large distinct primes, and G is a cyclic multiplicative group order n. Let g be a generator of G.

If we have an efficient algorithm to factor n, we still cannot compute discrete logs in G to base g. Conversly, given an efficient algorithm to find discrete logs in G to base g, we still cannot factor n.

(I think this is the current state of affairs. Please correct me if I am wrong).

[edit] Blum Blum Shub

Actually i don't know a lot about BBS, but i rather suspect it would be difficult to break if you don't know the modulus. So even if factorisation is easy, if you don't tell people the modulus, BBS might be safe. Does anyone know if this is true? I vaguely remember there are some proposed uses of BBS where you do tell people the modulus, so a quick factor method would at least reduce the usefulness of BBS.

If the discrete log problem can be solved quickly, factorization can also be done quickly.. this has been proven.

As for the BBS. Breaking BBS is provably as hard as factoring the Modulus. If you had a huge modulus and it was secret then i guess it'd be incredibly hard to break.

User:217.35.21.249

[edit] Significant fields

The article says:

This problem is of significance in mathematics, cryptography, complexity theory, and quantum computers.

Is it really of significance "in" complexity theory and quantum computers? I would interpret this as meaning that a deeper understanding of integer factorization would lead to a deeper understanding of complexity theory (or quantum computers). I'm not sure that this is true (unlike the case for mathematics or cryptography).

User:Cwitty

[edit] Article name

I was just wondering... Should this be at prime factorization? That term seems to be more common. -- Oliver P. 04:25, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to say...this article was named "integer factorization" because there are other types of factorization (you can factorize polynomials, for example). I'd say either is OK, so "integer factorization" should stand, I think. Decrypt3 01:05, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Besides, prime factorization is certain to draw fire from Wikipedians pointing out that primes cannot be factorized.
—Herbee 18:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, "prime factorization" is understood to mean decomposing integers into primes. It's a recognized term: [1]. Decrypt3 21:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but being wrong never seems to inhibit do-gooders from flaming or "being bold". I think integer factorization is slightly better than prime factorization because it draws less fire. —Herbee 15:26, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

I've never seen the likes of Lenstra, Leyland, etc refer to "prime factorization" - "integer factorization" seems to be the standard term. — ciphergoth 08:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External link

Is the recently added external link by 136.1.1.154 really necessary? It doesn't really aid comprehension of the topic, and to be honest, I find it to be an insult to the reader's intelligence. Decrypt3 01:09, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's not particularly useful; I've removed it. — Matt 01:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary article?

There is a separate and unnecessary article called prime factorization algorithm that should be deleted. I don't see anything worthy of merging there. Anyone cares to volunteer?

I vote to delete. All it is, is an extended example of trial division. If anything, the example and source code should be merged into trial division. Decrypt3 21:20, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prime factorization is in P

... not unknown as this article suggests. See prime numbers. User:144.135.3.174

What? This is either a joke ("prime factorization" meaning factorizing primes into their prime constituents) or nonsense. — ciphergoth 08:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Primality testing is in P. This is probably what our anonymous friend meant. Prime factorization might be in P. Deco 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factorization record

Perhaps I'm being too pedantic, but the article says

As of 2005, the largest number factored using general-purpose methods...

Surely this is misleading? Large numbers that are p-smooth for small p can be factored in polynomial time, so should it be made clear that it is really the record for factoring semiprimes that is mentioned? Birkett 11:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right. That edit was incorrect; I've reverted it. Decrypt3 16:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

My original thinking was that the clause "using general methods as part of public research" covered it for all numbers, because has anyone factored a larger number using general methods as part of public research? You could easily generate such a record, of course. Perhaps we need a better qualifier than "as part of public research"? — Matt Crypto 21:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking that maybe the "general-purpose methods" part should go. We use semiprimes as the gauge of factoring technology because they're the most "difficult", but in theory, the fact that they're semiprimes doesn't matter for general-purpose algorithms, by definition. I think larger numbers have been factored, but using specialized algorithms because they're not semiprimes. I think only the semiprimes are really relevant here because of their application in public-key crypto. So I think the general-purpose part is causing the problem. Decrypt3 08:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think some very large Fermat numbers have been factored with the SNFS, much much larger than the semiprime records. Deco 21:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting unsourced paragraph

I'm deleting the following paragraph; I don't think factorization is known to be NP-hard, and a quick web search didn't reveal any sources for it. Please don't add it back without also providing a source. Cwitty 07:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem of finding large prime factors of even larger composite numbers is an example of an NP-Complete problem. There is a mathematical proof showing that an algorithm to solve this problem which does not require polynomial time to complete would be a solution to all other NP-Complete problems, such as finding the shortest path through a maze.

Prime factorization is believed to be NP-Complete, but this has not been proven. It's possible that a polynomial-time factorization algorithm exists. If so, that would mean that factorization is not NP-Complete, and thus the algorithm could not be used to solve other NP-Complete problems. However, if an algorithm is developed that can solve an NP-Complete problem in polynomial time, then that same algorithm could also factor integers in polynomial time. Decrypt3 22:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, integer factorization is believed to be in NP, but not NP-complete. — ciphergoth 08:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Further, a polynomial time algorithm for factorization would not show that it is not NP-Complete; it has not been proven that there is no polynomial time algorithm for NP-Complete problems. --65.6.24.115 21:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Integer factorization is unlikely to be NP-hard. This would imply NP=coNP, a result widely believed to be false. The other replies by ciphergoth and 65.6.24.115 are correct. Deco 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integer factoring (feedback)

Factoring is reducible to Discrete Log:

I will show for the case of n = p.q Generate random number 'a' co-prime to 'n' and random number x < n but very close to n. compute b = a^x mod n but don't tell x to the 'discrete log finding algorithm'. Instead ask it to find the discrete log of b (to base a) mod n. Let the value returned by the algorithm be y. There is a very high probability that y != x. If so x-y will be a multiple of the order of 'a' which can easily be used to factor. I will not go to the details of factoring once knowing the order or a multiple. (since this is a well known method). If we are unlucky and x=y then we start over.

ISTR that you are correct, factoring can be reduced to the discrete log problem in composites. However, cryptography mostly relies on the discrete log in Z*_p with p prime, or on other groups like elliptic curves. There's no reduction between these problems and factoring. — ciphergoth 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

This reduction seems hard.... I have this approach. Given n=p.q, try to find a number r such that s=2n.r+1 is prime. Thus s=2p.q.r+1. and we know r. Generate a, x <- Z_s and compute b=a^x mod s. Let y = DL(a, b, s). If the order of 'a' is a multiple of only one of p or q then we can factor n easily. I am not sure about the probabilty of finding a with the specific properties but it still appears that the problem is easy.

Another comment:

NP-hard = (1) every NP problem reducible to it but (2) the problem itself is not known to be in NP. Factoring is in NP but (1) is possibly not true. So it is NOT NP-hard by either arguments

(2) is not a precondition for being NP-hard.

A problem is NP-complete iff it is in NP and NP-hard. Factoring is not known to be NP-complete, and TBH it's unlikely to be. However, this doesn't tell us whether or not it's in ~P. And that's by no means all we need to know to know for sure the security of cryptosystems based around it - for one thing, all of these things refer to worst-case performance, and it's average-case that matters for crypto.

Not just average-case, but it's entirely possible that P ≠ RP = NP, so probabilistic algorithms might solve factoring efficiently while it still lies outside P. But I digress. Deco 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] factor using ti-84

I have a program on my calc that can factor any number and give a sum of all factors. It only gives what goes into the number equally. If you plug in 28 it gives you 1,24 2,14 4,7 and then the sum (28). It works for numbers up to 999,999,999 for that is the max digits on it. I will post it soon. K-unit 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

here it is (:= enter)

ClrAllLists:ClrHome:{1}->L1:Input "ENTER NUMBER ",X:If X(greater than or equal to)1e10:Goto 1:1->Y:Disp "fast(1) or :input "slow(2)?",G:lbl 2:x/y->b:If B(is less than)(square root of)X:Goto 1:If B(does not equal)int(B:goto 5:Disp y,b:if B=x:Goto 9:B+y+L1->L1:lbl 9 if G=2:pause: Lbl 5:If x/2(does not equal)int(x/2:goto 19:1+y->y:goto 2:lbl 19:2+y->y:goto 2:lbl 1: disp "end",x:disp "sum of factors",L1:pause:clrhome:delvar x:getDtStr(1) That's all K-unit 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest we not place this in the article, as numbers of this size can be factored rapidly by even the slowest devices by trial division. More interesting are the algorithms used by CAS packages such as Mathematica and Maple and by the TI-89, which has a variant of the Derive symbol engine built into it. Mathematica's in particular are documented: "FactorInteger switches between trial division, Pollard p−1, Pollard rho and quadratic sieve algorithms.".[2] Mathematica also has a factoring function based on ECM. Deco 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But it is useful for anyone who has a ti-83 or 84 and wants this program.K-unit 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but Wikipedia is not a source code repository. A more appropriate forum might be ticalc.org. Deco 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction needed?

In the Integer Factorization site it shows a time complexity for GNFS different than the complexity shown on the GNFS site itself.

[edit] Merge

A merge from Prime factor to this article is needed. It seems to be similar enough to be in the same article. Any objections before I merge? --Mets501^{talk • contribs} 22:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That article is about the fact that numbers have prime factors. This article is about the computational problem of integer factorization. I feel strongly that they should not be merged. — ciphergoth 09:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be merged into Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, or the first section of Prime Number, instead. Walt 14:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll remove the merge tag from this page. --Mets501^{talk • contribs} 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial example

The factors at the beginning of the article are deliberately chosen to be trivial, so that the reader may verify that they are factors by mental arithmetic and thus understand the term better. If a non-trivial example is to be given, it should be right at the other end of the scale, like a recent factoring record. — ciphergoth 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardness/difficulty

(moved from my talk page - — ciphergoth)

Why do you insist on using the word "hardness" at integer factorization? Difficulty sounds much better and sounds more formal. —Mets501^talk 22:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think hardness is the correct technical term in this context. You'd refer to "NP-hardness", not "NP-difficulty". — ciphergoth 12:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hardness evokes a formal sense of difficulty, as opposed to an informal "argh I can't do it" sense. There are plenty of proofs that factoring is equivalent in difficulty to tough problems that nobody can solve, much like NP-complete problems (but to a lesser degree). Deco 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem. We'll keep it at hardness. —Mets501^talk 15:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section related to music to be deleted, and title of article slightly too general for intended subject

The intended subject of this article is the integer factorization problem, particularly the factorization of large numbers used in cryptography in RSA. The more general subject of integer factorization, including uniqueness of factorization and non-mathematical applications of integer factorization (usually of small integers), such as to music as in a recently added section on this topic, seems to go beyond the intended scope. Applications to music are inappropriate to an article about the hardness of factoring, and should be deleted.

Perhaps the article can be retitled to integer factorization problem, or integer factorization algorithms so that subject of the article is more precisely defined. A more general article can be kept under a title integer factorization or some variation. Otherwise, one can delete or revert more general discussion that get added to this article, or put them somewhere as needed. DRLB 17:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just go ahead and revert it. I was going to when I had a chance to write a note to the editor. By the way, it's his own technique he's talking about, but I was going to write a nice note anyway. Walt 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was suspicious that the cited source may have been written by the contributor, but noticed it's several years old. In any case I agree that this is the wrong article for it; if we were to keep it it would probably belong in some music scale related article and maybe link here. Deco 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is known

It is unverifiable to say "no polynomial time algorithm is known". How can we tell? In particular, if any security organisation found such an algorithm, they would have an interest in keeping this knowledge secret. I'm planning to change "known" to "widely known" or "published" or some such wording to allow for the case that it is known but secret. Stephen B Streater 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Deco 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - I've done a few. Stephen B Streater 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On section "Integer factorization in polynomial time"

I think the text in this section is far too sensational to be appropriate. Simply having a factoring algorithm that runs in polynomial time does not (necessarily) mean that "factoring almost as easy as primality testing". In particular, big-O notation hides constants which may turn out to be very large, and a polynomial runtime could still be large enough that for numbers of interest (eg, 1024 or 2048 bit RSA keys) the runtime is infeasible (eg, if factoring an integer n can be done in O(n^1000) time, that's polynomial, but that doesn't mean it's fast, or practical, or least of all "as easy as primality testing" - it just means that there exists a large enough number that this method would be faster than the GNFS; it doesn't give us any clue as to how big that number would have to be).

Not going to edit this myself since it seems making changes without an account is grounds for auto-revert around these parts...

Uhm - a polynomial time algorithm for factoring has been known since 2002 when it was discovered by Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena [3]. The page should be updated to reflect this minor development :P. Now before people start running around saying "RSA is broken" let me emphasize that the algorithm is more than O(n^12) [(O(n^6)) if you want to make some assumptions based on conjectures] and has LARGE constant terms. Basically I threw together the algorithm as described in the paper and attempted to factor a 17-bit number (there is a minimum size for which it works). I interrupted the pogram after a couple minutes, and it was still computing he first bit in the first iteration. Even speeding up the algorithm by a factor of a couple million will not produce results better than the number seive for any numbers we normally use for RSA (not to mention the algorithm will become a memory hog for large numbers due to the last stage of the algorithm computing in (mod X^r − 1, n)) - i.e. there are r [r is proportional to log(n)] n-bit terms in the polynomial you are working with). Simply put, the algorithm is interesting due to it's polynomial time nature, but that alone does not make it practical - yet.

The algorithm you refer to is for primality testing, not factoring. This is a meaningful difference; no one has any idea how to construct a polynomial-time factoring algorithm, and many doubt it is possible. Ntsimp 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One as an empty product of primes

(I also posted something similar to this at Talk:Fundamental theorem of arithmetic.) Several sources I've seen only state the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic for integers strictly greater than 1. Of course, I understand the argument about 1 being an empty product of primes, and I do admit that this convention makes the statement of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic a lot cleaner. Nevertheless, I think it's worthwhile at least to mention that there are two prevalent conventions. We can do that here, or we can refer readers to the Fundamental theorem of arithmetic article if the change I propose is made there. I don't mind making the changes myself, but I wanted some kind of discussion first. For some odd reason, these small trivialities produce huge controversy and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. VectorPosse 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)