Any efficient method to find divisors of a number

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rishav sapahi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method
AI Thread Summary
Finding divisors of large numbers can be tedious using traditional division methods. Algorithms like trial division check divisibility by all primes up to the square root of the number, but are slow. More efficient methods, such as Fermat's approach, utilize congruences of squares to facilitate factorization. The Quadratic Sieve optimizes Dixon's method by using sieving to identify smooth numbers, while the General Number Field Sieve is currently the fastest known algorithm for factoring large integers, leveraging algebraic structures. Understanding these algorithms can significantly enhance efficiency in divisor finding tasks.
Rishav sapahi
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Like if number is too big then normal division is very much tedious task to do
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Rishav sapahi said:
Like if number is too big then normal division is very much tedious task to do

Which is why calculators and computers were invented.
 
SteamKing said:
Which is why calculators and computers were invented.
I am asking about the algorithm on which they works as I have come across an algorithm on fundamental theorem of arithmetic but it was not so much clear.
 
The simplest (but of course the slowest) is trial division. This can be done by checking the divisibility of N by all primes up to \sqrt N.
This is an exponential time algorithm (exponential in the number of bits).

There are faster algorithms based on Fermat's idea to find two perfect squares modulo N. If you have found that a^2 \equiv b^2 \left(\mod N\right) then \left(a+b\right)\left(a-b\right) \equiv 0 \left(\mod N\right) and this leads usually to a non trivial factorization of N by finding the gcd of (a+b), N and (a-b), N.

Most of the fast (as in subexponential, but still superpolynomial time) algorithms are based on Fermat's method, and differ on the method of finding the congruence of squares. The simplest is Dixon's Factorization method (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixon's_factorization_method). It looks for numbers such that a^2 \left(\mod N\right) is the product of small prime factors (called smooth numbers). When enough such numbers have been found, it is possible to find a subset of these numbers whose product is a perfect square (which is different that a^2). This gives a congruence of squares.

The Quadratic Sieve is an optimization of Dixon's factorization method which uses sieving in order to speed up the process of finding numbers such that a^2 is smooth modulo N. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_sieve for more details.

Finally, the fastest currently known algorithm for factoring large integers is the General Number Field sieve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_number_field_sieve). This one is complicated because it deals with different algebraic structures (called "number fields") and looks for factorizations in these fields instead. This turns out to be faster, and using correspondences between the integers and these number fields, we can obtain a factorization in the integers. I honestly don't know how this works though...

Wikipedia has a list of many factorization algorithms, some of which work only for numbers of special form (and are thus faster in these specific cases):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top