In Miller-Rabin, what is the probability to get a witness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the Miller-Rabin primality test and the differing probabilities of identifying a composite number as prime. The initial source claims that if a number p is not prime, there is at least a 3/4 chance that a randomly chosen base n will serve as a witness to its compositeness. In contrast, the Wikipedia entry notes that there is a small chance of encountering a base that acts as a strong liar, potentially undermining the test's reliability. The conversation raises questions about the basis for the 3/4 probability, suggesting that while it may be considered significant, the actual likelihood of encountering liars could be lower than indicated. The discussion highlights the complexities of proving such probabilities in the context of primality testing, emphasizing the challenges posed by the infinite nature of prime numbers.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
In
http://jeremykun.com/2013/06/16/miller-rabin-primality-test/
which introduces the Miller-Rabin Primality test, it is stated
"If p is not a prime, then there is at least a 3/4 chance that a randomly chosen n will be a witness."
However, in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Rabin_primality_test
it is stated "There is, nevertheless, a small chance that we are unlucky and hit an a which is a strong liar for n."
Now, I suppose that 1/4 may be considered "small", and of course the first author said "at least", and anyway by running enough tests one can reduce the probability of liars as close to zero (without hitting zero) as one wishes (or equivalently of witnesses as close to one...), but nonetheless I am wondering whether "3/4" was not picked out of a hat, or whether it has a solid basis.
 
Technology news on Phys.org
I don't know about this specific algorithm, but often those numbers are hard to prove, so even if the real value might be very small (so small that Maple just uses 5 numbers), the proven upper limit can be much larger (1/4 here?).
 
  • Like
Likes nomadreid
Thanks for the response, mfb. Given the limited amount known about primes and the infinity of possibilities, it is curious how they even came up with an upper limit.
 
Thread 'Is this public key encryption?'
I've tried to intuit public key encryption but never quite managed. But this seems to wrap it up in a bow. This seems to be a very elegant way of transmitting a message publicly that only the sender and receiver can decipher. Is this how PKE works? No, it cant be. In the above case, the requester knows the target's "secret" key - because they have his ID, and therefore knows his birthdate.
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...
Back
Top