| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 927.1 | A good recent reference | CTCADM::ROTH | If you plant ice you'll harvest wind | Thu Sep 08 1988 15:33 | 7 |
| There's a recent book by Hans Riesel, published by Birkhauser
on prime numbers and computer algorithms for them. It will probably
supply you with all the information you need - he gives PASCAL programs as
well a simple theory for factorization algorithms and tests for
primality.
- Jim
|
| 927.2 | | CLT::GILBERT | multiple inheritence happens | Fri Sep 09 1988 09:10 | 1 |
| See note 2.8. BTW, does anybody have a more recent list?
|
| 927.3 | list from AMS | CTCADM::ROTH | If you plant ice you'll harvest wind | Fri Sep 09 1988 10:09 | 11 |
| � See note 2.8. BTW, does anybody have a more recent list?
The most recent list I know of (in published form) is available from
the AMS - it appeared in the past year or so. Though I don't have the
exact publication title, I can look it up. It would be mentioned in
the Notices of the AMS most likely.
This list contains not only Mersenne primes, but many others with
interesting structure.
- Jim
|
| 927.4 | 42735042735042735042735042735043 big enough? | POOL::HALLYB | The smart money was on Goliath | Mon Sep 12 1988 16:21 | 8 |
| I believe the JACOBI reference is in the _Scientific American_ issue
that described the RSA one-way encryption algorithm. Does anybody
remember which issue?
Re: .0 -- just how big are these numbers? 10 digits? 40 digits? 100? 400?
And how many do you need?
John
|
| 927.5 | 42735032735042735042735042735043 not big enough... | FNYADG::HUDELOT | | Tue Sep 13 1988 03:21 | 18 |
| Re: .4 -- You're right, I need these prime number for an RSA
implementation. I think I will use 240 binary digits= 73 decimal
digits (or I think so).
Re: .2 and .3 -- I want to check if *very large* number so I need
algorithms, I can't do comparisons nor use Euler_Fermat in this
case. (see .0).
I wrote note 243 in security_information conference (HUMAN_SECURITY).
You will see there in what my job consist in, who I am ... and why
my english is so bad.
Anyway, thank you for your interest in this note. I don't have the
_Scientific American_ issue and I would like to find this algorithm.
I have a version that gave me very bad results (2 per cent of error
checking!!) so I guess that my implementation does not be very good.
Thank you again, Patrick.
|