probable prime tests for gmp
Sat, 2 Nov 2002 02:06:56 +0000
On Thursday 31 Oct 2002 12:14 am, Kevin Ryde wrote:
> Jason Moxham <J.L.Moxham@maths.soton.ac.uk> writes:
> > Again if a user
> > wants a pure strong psuedoprime test then he will have to write one f=
> > himself , or gmp will have to provide both ?
> Don't know.
> I guess the potential strengthening of tests in tricky ways is a good
> argument for not exposing particular components like mpz_millerrabin.
> An interface that's highly specific to a particular algorithm is
> instantly obsoleted by an advance in the theory.
But if an advance of theory takes say 10 years , then we will be stuck wi=
Something like "mpz_probable_prime_p" should be independant of the parti=
test , so that we can take advantage of any new theory , and could also h=
"mpz_sprp" and "mpz_rqft" for people or algorithms that need a particular=
test for whatever reasons. mpz_sprp allready has good reason for being=20