Composite Number Test: Find Factors w/ Quadratic Equations

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rajeshmarndi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Test
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the identification of composite numbers through the use of quadratic equations and their relationship to perfect squares. Participants explore the concept of deriving factors of composite numbers and the challenges associated with determining whether a quadratic expression can yield perfect squares.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that every composite number has a specific higher square from which it descends, using examples to illustrate this point.
  • Another participant questions the practicality of the proposed method, suggesting that it may be more labor-intensive than traditional prime factorization algorithms.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of determining whether the quadratic expression can generate perfect squares, with some participants expressing skepticism about the method's effectiveness for large numbers.
  • There is a discussion about the rarity of squares among large numbers and the challenges of expressing a number as a difference of two squares.
  • Some participants emphasize the historical difficulty in finding efficient methods for factorization, particularly for large composite numbers, and mention the implications for cryptography.
  • One participant requests more detailed work from another, indicating a desire for collaborative problem-solving rather than simply receiving answers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness and practicality of using quadratic equations to identify composite numbers. While some support the approach, others argue that it may not be helpful or efficient, particularly for large numbers. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the viability of the proposed method.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the method may involve significant trial and error, especially for large composite numbers, and that traditional algorithms for prime factorization are often more efficient. There is also mention of the limitations of the quadratic approach in determining perfect squares.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to mathematicians, computer scientists, and enthusiasts of number theory, particularly those exploring factorization methods and the properties of composite numbers.

rajeshmarndi
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
All composite number comprised of atleast two factor e.g

57 = 3 * 19 and 1 * 57
14927= 11*1357 = 23*649 = 59*253 = 1*14927

We can get to know 57 is a composite number , as the factor 3*19 is achieved, as below, from 11^2. The first factor reduces and the 2nd factor increases, till first factor is 1.

11*11=121
9*13=117
7*15=105
5*17=85
3*19=57
1*21=21

Note all these composite no. that descend from 11^2 are square distance from 11^2 as below.

121-117=4= 2^2
121-105=16 = 4^2
121-85=36 = 6^2
121-57=64 = 8^2
121-21= 100 = 10^2

Note 1*21 factor has always a difference of 1, here, 11-10=1 (i.e of 11^2 & 10^2). So it can always be eliminated.This is true for all composite number. So, each Composite number has a specific square(higher than the test number N) from where it descend, like in the above example.So to find whether a number N is a composite or not. One only need to see if any of the higher squares are square distance to N.
Say a test number N=1656337 . Square next to it is , integer(√N)+ 1

which is,
= integer (√1656337) ) + 1 = integer ( 1286.987...) ) + 1 = 1286 + 1 = 1287.

So, square next to N is 1287^2.
We can formulate distances to next squares which will be quadratic in nature. For the above number N, it will be,

x^2 + 1287*2*x + (1287^2-N)

(this is the distances to all the higher square to N. Starting with x=0)

x^2 + 2574x + 32 = m^2 ?

So, if the above quadratic expression generates an perfect square (integer). Then N is a composite number. Remember 1*N also comes under a specific squares, so every such equation will definitely have one solution for 1*N factor.

So we need to see if the quadratic expression generates atleast two solution. If yes then definitely N is a composite number.
But I am not able to determine, how to say such a quadratic will generate perfect squares or not.For the above test number N. Since I know 1656337 is a composite number and 1217 and 1361 are its factor.

In that case, we can find the squares where its distance comes to be a square.
(1217 + 1361) /2 = 1289

So we get from 1289^2, 1217*1361 has descended.

so, 1289^2 - 1656337 = 72^2

i.e

x^2 + 2574x + 32 = 72^2
so we definitely get at x=2 the quadratic is a perfect square

Similarly for factor 1*1656337, it always descend from

integer(1656337/2) + 1 = integer(828168.5)+1 = 828168+1 = 828169 square

i.e
x^2 + 2574x + 32 = 828169^2
and x for this, will always be

x= [(1287-1)^2 - 32 ] / 2 = 826882

So,
x^2 + 2574x + 32 = m^2
has two solution.

i.e N(1656337) has two square at x= 2 & x = 826882 and therefore is a composite number.
Please comment.
Thank you.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
rajeshmarndi said:
This is true for all composite number. So, each Composite number has a specific square(higher than the test number N) from where it descend, like in the above example.
Try to find a square for 6=2*3. It does not work for even numbers (although it is trivial to find a prime factor for them).
rajeshmarndi said:
One only need to see if any of the higher squares are square distance to N.
This is much more work than the usual tests if a number is prime.

With a good algorithm, your home computer can check if a 50-digit number is prime in seconds, and find the factors in seconds to minutes. Example script.
4564534346464575453645453857398573985358375558353521
= 132985692076982233761143 * 34323499582363159679580258647 - found in 2 seconds.

With the square numbers, it would have to run for years to millenia. Your approach doesn't look wrong, but it does not help.
 
mfb said:
With the square numbers, it would have to run for years to millenia. Your approach doesn't look wrong, but it does not help.

x^2 + 2574x + 32 = m^2 ?
Is it really, difficult (or no way), to determine ,if quadratic like above, can generate perfect square or not. I had an impression, it can be solved just like any other equation.
 
Try the example of 4564534346464575453645453857398573985358375558353521.

It is not sufficient to find any larger square, you have to express the number as difference of two squares. And finding that via trial and error is not feasible - it is equivalent to check all possible factors. Squares are rare if the numbers are that large.
 
mfb said:
And finding that via trial and error is not feasible -
Why do you say to solve x^2 + 2574x + 32 = m^2 ?
it has to be via trial and error.
 
Despite centuries of searches, no one found a method that does not involve a lot of trial and error (for large numbers), or uses the opposite direction (find the primes first, then reconstruct the difference of squares if you are interested in it).
Such a method would revolutionize cryptography. It would also come with a reasonable prize money (that one expired but I think there are follow-up prizes).

It is easy with 4-digit numbers such as yours, because it involves just a few thousand attempts in the worst case. A computer can do that in a millisecond. A computer cannot do 1050 attempts - and that is the range where prime factorization gets interesting.
 
rajeshmarndi said:
x^2 + 2574x + 32 = m^2 ?
Is it really, difficult (or no way), to determine ,if quadratic like above, can generate perfect square or not. I had an impression, it can be solved just like any other equation.

Come on, I have solved various questions of this type for you already. We won't keep spoonfeeding you the answer. So you should start by showing us some work.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
922
  • · Replies 68 ·
3
Replies
68
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K