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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nomadreid
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Miller-Rabin Primality Test, specifically the probability of encountering a witness when testing a composite number. It is established 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. However, there exists a small probability that a base n could be a strong liar, which complicates the reliability of the test. The conversation highlights the challenge in proving the exact probabilities associated with the algorithm, suggesting that while empirical testing can reduce the likelihood of encountering liars, the theoretical foundations of the probabilities remain complex and not fully understood.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Miller-Rabin Primality Test
  • Familiarity with concepts of probabilistic algorithms
  • Knowledge of prime numbers and composite numbers
  • Basic grasp of mathematical proofs and probability theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of the Miller-Rabin Primality Test
  • Explore the concept of strong liars in probabilistic testing
  • Learn about alternative primality tests, such as the AKS primality test
  • Investigate empirical methods for reducing the probability of false positives in primality testing
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, computer scientists, cryptographers, and anyone interested in the reliability of primality testing algorithms.

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,779
Reaction score
258
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   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
147
Views
11K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
14K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K