## 22742Re: stronger than BPSW?

Expand Messages
• May 31, 2011
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "paulunderwooduk" <paulunderwood@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Pari/GP implements Baillie-PSW with a strong 2-SPRP test and a strong -- where the jacobi symbol is -1 -- test on x^2-P*x-1 with minimal P.
> > > >
> > > > In my paper "quadratic composite tests", available in the files section of this group, I give another 3-selfridge test based on a strong a-SPRP test and a strong lucas test on x^2-a*x+1 with minimal a.
> > > >
> > > > In a way my test is stronger in that writing n+1 as 2^s*d, I can say
> > > >
> > > > V(a,1,<(n+1)/(2^r)-1,<(n+1)/(2^r)>) is either <a,2> for r=s; or is <-a,-2> for some r: 0<r<=s
> > > >
> > > > In matrix terms I am taking the successive square roots of
> > > >
> > > > [a,-1;1,0]^(n+1) == [1,0;0,1] (for a prime)
> > > >
> > > > Neat, eh?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I can go one step further: The trace of the square root of a [-1,0;0,-1], where it exists, is 0 (mod n) for prime n.
> > >
> >
> > This extra step is trivial: The trace the square root, where it exists, of a -I is always zero regardless of primality.
> >
> > One more thing I have noticed for primes +-2 (mod 5) and of the form 4*N+3 is:
> >
> > [3,-1;1,0]^(n+1)/2) == [-1,0;0,-1] (mod n)
> > [7,-1;1,0]^(n+1)/4) == [-1,0;0,-1] (mod n)
> >
>
> It is an interesting fact that:
>
> trace( [3,-1;1,0]^(2*N) ) = trace( [7,-1;1,0]^N )
>
> If, for my 6 selfridge test for {a-2;a+2}, I first find:
>
> Mod([3,-1;1,0],n)^(n+1)==I
>
> I can immediately deduce Mod([7,-1;1,0],n)^((n+1)/2) is also I. This deduction can be made since the traces are the same and the determinants are all 1, and remembering that gcd(30,n)==1. If:
>
> Mod([7,-1;1,0],n)^((n+1)/2) = [r,-s;s,-r+2] (for the trace condition) then the determinant is -r^2+2*r+s^2==1. Rearranging terms:
>
> r-1 == +-s
>
> Mod([7,-1;1,0],n)^((n+1)/2+1) = [7*r-s,-7*s+r-2;r,-s]
>
> The "non-trace" diagonal always sums to zero:
>
> -7*s+2*(r-1)==0 (mod n)
>
> Substituting:
>
> -7*s+-2*s == 0 (mod n)
>
> but gcd(30,n)==1. So s is 0 and consequently r is 1.
>
> So a 4-selfridge (PRP) test follows for numbers +-2 (mod 5)
>
> (i) gcd(30,n)==1
> (ii) Mod(3,n)^n==3
> (iii) Mod(7,n)^n==7
> (iv) Mod([3,-1;1,0],n)^(n+1)==1 (*)
>
> As David has pointed out, (*) can be more quickly calculated as:
>
> Mod(Mod(1,n)*l,l^2-3*l+1)^(n+1)==1
>

Further, if kronecker(-3,n)==-1, this can be reduced to 3 selfridges by dropping the Mod(7,n)^n==7 test because the composite test is based
a-2==-1 and a+2==3.

All in this thread will be added to the next release of my paper. I am still testing the ideas for small n, n<10^8,

Paul
• Show all 7 messages in this topic