- --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "dleclair55" <dleclair55@y...>

wrote:> > Pollard' rho algorithm is not deterministic,

that

> > It is probabilistic and could fail even with small numbers.

>

> Sigh. That's what the original poster said.

>

> I won't claim to be an expert but I'm not aware of any algorithm

> fits the bill.

lower

>

> X iterations of Rho, P+-1 and ECM won't give you a deterministic

> bound. SQUFOF, Schnorr-Lenstra, Pollard-Strassen, CFRAC, QS, and

p+-1 for a given pair of B1 and B2 will have a lower bound, as there

> G/SNFS all depend on the size of N. Fermat's method and Lehman's

> method depend on special properties of p and q in relation to each

> other.

>

will be some smallest prime that doesn't fit the smoothness criteria

of the algorithm. However for large B1 and B2 it may be difficult to

determine what this is.

Andrew > Is there a factoring algorithm which depends on the size of

(Remark: almost all factoring algorithms have a superpolynomial

> the factors (and

> not the integer being factored itself), and is faster than

> trial division,

> yet upon failure it provides a proven lower bound on the factors?

dependency on the size of N, the integer being factored. I can't,

off hand, think of any that do not. Some, such as ECM and NFS

have subexponential dependency, others such as trial divsion and

SQUFOF are exponential.)

Yes, if you regard Dan Bernstein's product-tree method of finding

small prime divisors as being different from "trial division". It's

certainly faster asymtotically than the algorithm conventionally

known as trial division.

Another technique: precomputate the primorial of a prime and

evaluate g=gcd(N,p#) repeatedly, replacing N by N/g until g=1.

p is now your lower bound. Pull out the factors from the

gcds with trial division (or recursive application of this

algorithm).

Note this is not faster than trial division for a single N,

because of the precomputation, but will run faster if you

amortize over many N.

There may be other techniques.

Paul- Paul Leyland wrote:
> > Is there a factoring algorithm which depends on the size of

I have not heard of Bernstein's product-tree before but it sounds like my

> > the factors (and

> > not the integer being factored itself), and is faster than

> > trial division,

> > yet upon failure it provides a proven lower bound on the factors?

>

> Yes, if you regard Dan Bernstein's product-tree method of finding

> small prime divisors as being different from "trial division". It's

> certainly faster asymtotically than the algorithm conventionally

> known as trial division.

TreeSieve:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/primeform/message/4231

The GMP based implementation is 12 times faster than individual trial factoring

by primeform for 50000-digit numbers, but slow for small numbers.

This version can only factor to 2^32.

--

Jens Kruse Andersen - The question is how it can prove a lower bound for the factors of a

number. I imagine this would be easy for numbers such as repunits

where factors are restricted to special forms, but for other numbers

it might not work very well because of the astonishing number of

primes.

For example, for the repunits R311 (not to be confused with R317),

R509 and R557 - the status of which is "Composite But No Factor

Known", this method seems very promising because what I once read

about repunits suggests that these numbers must have two very large

factors and if primality tests for numbers of the correct form are

available, it might solve the problem well, especially for R311,

which mystified me on seeing it in a table of repunits.

The problem is with how to test the primality of the numbers of the

appropriate form - though the effect of not doing this is most likely

to be mere wastage of time ratehr than errors - for instance with the

large 1187-digit cofactor of F12.