Actually, there was a small bug fix that I found, and I had a teacher
who told me once that there was only 5 pseudoprimes. I realized that
large numbers of prime numbers were returning false, and discovered the
root of the problem, which was that my M-R test ended too late... But,
it works now, tha
Tuvas wrote:
> Okay, now I get the correct number of 561 pseudoprimes, 5, so I can
> assume that it is indeed working right.
Your code now looks right, so I'm guessing "5" was a typo,
perhaps because "5" is just below "8" on the numeric keypad.
You can simplify your loop like:
def is_strong_pse
Okay, now I get the correct number of 561 pseudoprimes, 5, so I can
assume that it is indeed working right. Whew. Thanks for the help on
that one. Now, I only wish I could change the answer to my last
homework assignment... Oh well.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ahh, I see, I missed doing the last step in my M-R test. Hmmm. Well,
got that one fixed now, time for a new release I guess. Sigh. I do seem
to be going through them rather quickly...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Tuvas wrote:
[...]
> Actually, I did another test, and realized that it was indeed a bug in
> the code. Yikes. Oh well, thanks for the help in identifying it!
>
> An example that would be alot easier is this:
>
Mod(16,561).is_strong_pseudo_prime()
>
> True
Hmmm...my M-R tester disagrees...
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Tuvas wrote:
> > Okay, I don't know if your farmiliar with the miller-rabin primality
> > test,
>
> Paul is familiar with it. When he referred to your Miller-Rabin
> test, he meant all the rounds.
>
> > but it's what's called a probabalistic test. Meaning that trying
> > it ou
Tuvas wrote:
> Okay, I don't know if your farmiliar with the miller-rabin primality
> test,
Paul is familiar with it. When he referred to your Miller-Rabin
test, he meant all the rounds.
> but it's what's called a probabalistic test. Meaning that trying
> it out once can give fake results.
In t
Although, I have to brag quickly, adding in this simple prime check
speed up the algorithm to the point that it's actually faster to find a
prime number with my program than to verify a number prime with
GP/PARI, so, I feel good.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Actually, it wasn't very nice, it returned composites instead of
primes... There was alot of little bugs, I'm glad I checked it again.
The new code once again is uploaded, the previews are on their way... I
did set up a system to check for primality up to 1000, I think any more
than that and it wil
Also I think the snippet code [p for p in range(2,N) if 0 not in
[pow(w,p-1,p)==1 for w in [2, 3, 5, 7, 11] if p>w]] is probably nicer to
generate a list of primes for up to N (instead of hard coded)
Aside from that looks nice.
Thanks
Tuvas wrote:
>Yep, you guessed correctly about the s2num fun
Yep, you guessed correctly about the s2num function, I knew I should
have put a bit more.. It just converts an ascii string to a number,
however many numbers that are nessicary. I could indeed check for all
primes below a certain number, however, it still seems to run quite
fast, at least to a 400
Also you last code which looked like:
def cran_rand(min,max):
if(min>max):
x=max
max=min
min=x
range=round(log(max-min)/log(256))
if range==0:
range=1
num=max+1
while(num>max):
num=min+s2num(urandom(range))
return num
what does s2nu
H. Well, I don't know what else I could do, except for to write a
function that doesn't require recursion. Still, 300 digits isn't too
bad... I have also realized that if you try is_prime(3) it will return
false. I'll have to work on it... Thanks for the help!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
thanks for the webpage info,
however theres a small error I found when trying to generate a prime
number with more than 300 decimal digits. It comes up with
File "prime.py", line 84, in mod_square_pow
return x*mod_square_pow(((a**2)%n),t,n,p*2)
File "prime.py", line 84, in mod_square_pow
Okay, I don't know if your farmiliar with the miller-rabin primality
test, but it's what's called a probabalistic test. Meaning that trying
it out once can give fake results. For instance, if you use the number
31 to test if 561 is prime, you will see the results say that it isn't.
Mathematically,
"Tuvas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have made and recently posted a libary I made to do Modular
> Arithmetic and Prime numbers on my website at
> http://www.geocities.com/brp13/Python/index.html . I am currently in a
> crypotology class, and am working on building a RSA public key
> cryptology
Okay, the bug in my code has been fixed, it should work alot better
now... I thought I had tested the power function, but I appearently
wasn't even close... But now it works just fine.
I guess you are right, I will have to work on a better system to be
cryptologically secure. But, at least I have
Well, the RSA element's never going to encrypt more than a small, 1
block system except under rare occasions, the primary encryption will
be AES128. Thanks for the help though!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Tuvas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> to make sure. For simpler than going to the website, I used the ranint
I assume you mean random.randint here.
> function to pick a random prime number, then ran it through the miller
> rabin primality test. It's a probabalistic test, which means it isn't
I have discoved that the mod function isn't quite right in dealing with
powers, but, I'll have it fixed shortly.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I have made and recently posted a libary I made to do Modular
Arithmetic and Prime numbers on my website at
http://www.geocities.com/brp13/Python/index.html . I am currently in a
crypotology class, and am working on building a RSA public key
cryptology system for a class project. I am building the
21 matches
Mail list logo
