Develop Reference

Efficient finding primitive roots modulo n using Python?

I'm using the following code for finding primitive roots modulo n in Python:
Code:
def gcd(a,b):
while b != 0:
a, b = b, a % b
return a
def primRoots(modulo):
roots = []
required_set = set(num for num in range (1, modulo) if gcd(num, modulo) == 1)
for g in range(1, modulo):
actual_set = set(pow(g, powers) % modulo for powers in range (1, modulo))
if required_set == actual_set:
roots.append(g)
return roots
if __name__ == "__main__":
p = 17
primitive_roots = primRoots(p)
print(primitive_roots)
Output:
[3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14]
Code fragment extracted from: Diffie-Hellman (Github)
Can the primRoots method be simplified or optimized in terms of memory usage and performance/efficiency?

One quick change that you can make here (not efficiently optimum yet) is using list and set comprehensions:
def primRoots(modulo):
coprime_set = {num for num in range(1, modulo) if gcd(num, modulo) == 1}
return [g for g in range(1, modulo) if coprime_set == {pow(g, powers, modulo)
for powers in range(1, modulo)}]
Now, one powerful and interesting algorithmic change that you can make here is to optimize your gcd function using memoization. Or even better you can simply use built-in gcd function form math module in Python-3.5+ or fractions module in former versions:
from functools import wraps
def cache_gcd(f):
cache = {}
#wraps(f)
def wrapped(a, b):
key = (a, b)
try:
result = cache[key]
except KeyError:
result = cache[key] = f(a, b)
return result
return wrapped
#cache_gcd
def gcd(a,b):
while b != 0:
a, b = b, a % b
return a
# or just do the following (recommended)
# from math import gcd
Then:
def primRoots(modulo):
coprime_set = {num for num in range(1, modulo) if gcd(num, modulo) == 1}
return [g for g in range(1, modulo) if coprime_set == {pow(g, powers, modulo)
for powers in range(1, modulo)}]
As mentioned in comments, as a more pythoinc optimizer way you can use fractions.gcd (or for Python-3.5+ math.gcd).

Based on the comment of Pete and answer of Kasramvd, I can suggest this:
from math import gcd as bltin_gcd
def primRoots(modulo):
required_set = {num for num in range(1, modulo) if bltin_gcd(num, modulo) }
return [g for g in range(1, modulo) if required_set == {pow(g, powers, modulo)
for powers in range(1, modulo)}]
print(primRoots(17))
Output:
[3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14]
Changes:
It now uses pow method's 3-rd argument for the modulo.
Switched to gcd built-in function that's defined in math (for Python 3.5) for a speed boost.
Additional info about built-in gcd is here: Co-primes checking

In the special case that p is prime, the following is a good bit faster:
import sys
# translated to Python from http://www.bluetulip.org/2014/programs/primitive.js
# (some rights may remain with the author of the above javascript code)
def isNotPrime(possible):
# We only test this here to protect people who copy and paste
# the code without reading the first sentence of the answer.
# In an application where you know the numbers are prime you
# will remove this function (and the call). If you need to
# test for primality, look for a more efficient algorithm, see
# for example Joseph F's answer on this page.
i = 2
while i*i <= possible:
if (possible % i) == 0:
return True
i = i + 1
return False
def primRoots(theNum):
if isNotPrime(theNum):
raise ValueError("Sorry, the number must be prime.")
o = 1
roots = []
r = 2
while r < theNum:
k = pow(r, o, theNum)
while (k > 1):
o = o + 1
k = (k * r) % theNum
if o == (theNum - 1):
roots.append(r)
o = 1
r = r + 1
return roots
print(primRoots(int(sys.argv[1])))

You can greatly improve your isNotPrime function by using a more efficient algorithm. You could double the speed by doing a special test for even numbers and then only testing odd numbers up to the square root, but this is still very inefficient compared to an algorithm such as the Miller Rabin test. This version in the Rosetta Code site will always give the correct answer for any number with fewer than 25 digits or so. For large primes, this will run in a tiny fraction of the time it takes to use trial division.
Also, you should avoid using the floating point exponentiation operator ** when you are dealing with integers as in this case (even though the Rosetta code that I just linked to does the same thing!). Things might work fine in a particular case, but it can be a subtle source of error when Python has to convert from floating point to integers, or when an integer is too large to represent exactly in floating point. There are efficient integer square root algorithms that you can use instead. Here's a simple one:
def int_sqrt(n):
if n == 0:
return 0
x = n
y = (x + n//x)//2
while (y<x):
x=y
y = (x + n//x)//2
return x

Those codes are all in-efficient, in many ways, first of all you do not need to iterate for all co-prime reminders of n, you need to check only for powers that are dividers of Euler's function from n. In the case n is prime Euler's function is n-1. If n i prime, you need to factorize n-1 and make check with only those dividers, not all. There is a simple mathematics behind this.
Second. You need better function for powering a number imagine the power is too big, I think in python you have the function pow(g, powers, modulo) which at each steps makes division and getting the remainder only ( _ % modulo ).
If you are going to implement the Diffie-Hellman algorithm it is better to use safe primes. They are such primes that p is a prime and 2p+1 is also prime, so that 2p+1 is called safe prime. If you get n = 2*p+1, then the dividers for that n-1 (n is prime, Euler's function from n is n-1) are 1, 2, p and 2p, you need to check only if the number g at power 2 and g at power p if one of them gives 1, then that g is not primitive root, and you can throw that g away and select another g, the next one g+1, If g^2 and g^p are non equal to 1 by modulo n, then that g is a primitive root, that check guarantees, that all powers except 2p would give numbers different from 1 by modulo n.
The example code uses Sophie Germain prime p and the corresponding safe prime 2p+1, and calculates primitive roots of that safe prime 2p+1.
You can easily re-work the code for any prime number or any other number, by adding a function to calculate Euler's function and to find all divisors of that value. But this is only a demo not a complete code. And there might be better ways.
class SGPrime :
'''
This object expects a Sophie Germain prime p, it does not check that it accept that as input.
Euler function from any prime is n-1, and the order (see method get_order) of any co-prime
remainder of n could be only a divider of Euler function value.
'''
def __init__(self, pSophieGermain ):
self.n = 2*pSophieGermain+1
#TODO! check if pSophieGermain is prime
#TODO! check if n is also prime.
#They both have to be primes, elsewhere the code does not work!
# Euler's function is n-1, #TODO for any n, calculate Euler's function from n
self.elrfunc = self.n-1
# All divisors of Euler's function value, #TODO for any n, get all divisors of the Euler's function value.
self.elrfunc_divisors = [1, 2, pSophieGermain, self.elrfunc]
def get_order(self, r):
'''
Calculate the order of a number, the minimal power at which r would be congruent with 1 by modulo p.
'''
r = r % self.n
for d in self.elrfunc_divisors:
if ( pow( r, d, self.n) == 1 ):
return d
return 0 # no such order, not possible if n is prime, - see small Fermat's theorem
def is_primitive_root(self, r):
'''
Check if r is a primitive root by modulo p. Such always exists if p is prime.
'''
return ( self.get_order(r) == self.elrfunc )
def find_all_primitive_roots(self, max_num_of_roots = None):
'''
Find all primitive roots, only for demo if n is large the list is large for DH or any other such algorithm
better to stop at first primitive roots.
'''
primitive_roots = []
for g in range(1, self.n):
if ( self.is_primitive_root(g) ):
primitive_roots.append(g)
if (( max_num_of_roots != None ) and (len(primitive_roots) >= max_num_of_roots)):
break
return primitive_roots
#demo, Sophie Germain's prime
p = 20963
sggen = SGPrime(p)
print (f"Safe prime : {sggen.n}, and primitive roots of {sggen.n} are : " )
print(sggen.find_all_primitive_roots())
Regards

Factoring a number into roughly equal factors

I would like to decompose a number into a tuple of numbers as close to each other in size as possible, whose product is the initial number. The inputs are the number n we want to factor and the number m of factors desired.
For the two factor situation (m==2), it is enough to look for the largest factor less than a square root, so I can do something like this
def get_factors(n):
i = int(n**0.5 + 0.5)
while n % i != 0:
i -= 1
return i, n/i
So calling this with 120 will result in 10,12.
I realize there is some ambiguity as to what it means for the numbers to be "close to each other in size". I don't mind if this is interpretted as minimizing Σ(x_i - x_avg) or Σ(x_i - x_avg)^2 or something else generally along those lines.
For the m==3 case, I would expect that 336 to produce 6,7,8 and 729 to produce 9,9,9.
Ideally, I would like a solution for general m, but if someone has an idea even for m==3 it would be much appreciated. I welcome general heuristics too.
EDIT: I would prefer to minimize the sum of the factors. Still interested in the above, but if someone has an idea for a way of also figuring out the optimal m value such that the sum of factors is minimal, it'd be great!

To answer your second question (which m minimizes the sum of factors), it will always be optimal to split number into its prime factors. Indeed, for any positive composite number except 4 sum of its prime factors is less that the number itself, so any split that has composite numbers can be improved by splitting that composite numbers into its prime factors.
To answer your first question, greedy approaches suggested by others will not work, as I pointed out in the comments 4104 breaks them, greedy will immediately extract 8 as the first factor, and then will be forced to split the remaining number into [3, 9, 19], failing to find a better solution [6, 6, 6, 19]. However, a simple DP can find the best solution. The state of the DP is the number we are trying to factor, and how many factors do we want to get, the value of the DP is the best sum possible. Something along the lines of the code below. It can be optimized by doing factorization smarter.
n = int(raw_input())
left = int(raw_input())
memo = {}
def dp(n, left): # returns tuple (cost, [factors])
if (n, left) in memo: return memo[(n, left)]
if left == 1:
return (n, [n])
i = 2
best = n
bestTuple = [n]
while i * i <= n:
if n % i == 0:
rem = dp(n / i, left - 1)
if rem[0] + i < best:
best = rem[0] + i
bestTuple = [i] + rem[1]
i += 1
memo[(n, left)] = (best, bestTuple)
return memo[(n, left)]
print dp(n, left)[1]
For example
[In] 4104
[In] 4
[Out] [6, 6, 6, 19]

You can start with the same principle: look for numbers under or equal to the mth root that are factors. Then you can recurse to find the remaining factors.
def get_factors(n, m):
factors = []
factor = int(n**(1.0/m) + .1) # fudged to deal with precision problem with float roots
while n % factor != 0:
factor = factor - 1
factors.append(factor)
if m > 1:
factors = factors + get_factors(n / factor, m - 1)
return factors
print get_factors(729, 3)

How about this, for m=3 and some n:
Get the largest factor of n smaller than the cube root of n, call it f1
Divide n by f1, call it g
Find the "roughly equal factors" of g as in the m=2 example.
For 336, the largest factor smaller than the cube root of 336 is 6 (I think). Dividing 336 by 6 gives 56 (another factor, go figure!) Performing the same math for 56 and looking for two factors, we get 7 and 8.
Note that doesn't work for any number with fewer than 3 factors. This method can be expanded for m > 3, maybe.
If this is right, and I'm not too crazy, the solution would be a recursive function:
factors=[]
n=336
m=3
def getFactors(howMany, value):
if howMany < 2:
return value
root=getRoot(howMany, value) # get the root of value, eg square root, cube, etc.
factor=getLargestFactor(value, root) # get the largest factor of value smaller than root
otherFactors=getFactors(howMany-1, value / factor)
otherFactors.insert(factor)
return otherFactors
print getFactors(n, m)
I'm too lazy to code the rest, but that should do it.

m=5 n=4 then m^(1/n)
you get:
Answer=1.495
then
1.495*1.495*1.495*1.495 = 5
in C#
double Result = Math.Pow(m,1/(double)n);

Prime number generation using Fibonacci possible?

I'm generating prime numbers from Fibonacci as follows (using Python, with mpmath and sympy for arbitrary precision):
from mpmath import *
def GCD(a,b):
while a:
a, b = fmod(b, a), a
return b
def generate(x):
mp.dps = round(x, int(log10(x))*-1)
if x == GCD(x, fibonacci(x-1)):
return True
if x == GCD(x, fibonacci(x+1)):
return True
return False
for x in range(1000, 2000)
if generate(x)
print(x)
It's a rather small algorithm but seemingly generates all primes (except for 5 somehow, but that's another question). I say seemingly because a very little percentage (0.5% under 1000 and 0.16% under 10K, getting less and less) isn't prime. For instance under 1000: 323, 377 and 442 are also generated. These numbers are not prime.
Is there something off in my script? I try to account for precision by relating the .dps setting to the number being calculated. Can it really be that Fibonacci and prime numbers are seemingly so related, but then when it's get detailed they aren't? :)

For this type of problem, you may want to look at the gmpy2 library. gmpy2 provides access to the GMP multiple-precision library which includes gcd() and fib() functions which calculate the greatest common divisor and the n-th fibonacci numbers quickly, and only using integer arithmetic.
Here is your program re-written to use gmpy2.
import gmpy2
def generate(x):
if x == gmpy2.gcd(x, gmpy2.fib(x-1)):
return True
if x == gmpy2.gcd(x, gmpy2.fib(x+1)):
return True
return False
for x in range(7, 2000):
if generate(x):
print(x)
You shouldn't be using any floating-point operations. You can calculate the GCD just using the builtin % (modulo) operator.
Update
As others have commented, you are checking for Fibonacci pseudoprimes. The actual test is slightly different than your code. Let's call the number being tested n. If n is divisible by 5, then the test passes if n evenly divides fib(n). If n divided by 5 leaves a remainder of either 1 or 4, then the test passes if n evenly divides fib(n-1). If n divided by 5 leaves a remainder of either 2 or 3, then the test passes if n evenly divides fib(n+1). Your code doesn't properly distinguish between the three cases.
If n evenly divides another number, say x, it leaves a remainder of 0. This is equivalent to x % n being 0. Calculating all the digits of the n-th Fibonacci number is not required. The test just cares about the remainder. Instead of calculating the Fibonacci number to full precision, you can calculate the remainder at each step. The following code calculates just the remainder of the Fibonacci numbers. It is based on the code given by #pts in Python mpmath not arbitrary precision?
def gcd(a,b):
while b:
a, b = b, a % b
return a
def fib_mod(n, m):
if n < 0:
raise ValueError
def fib_rec(n):
if n == 0:
return 0, 1
else:
a, b = fib_rec(n >> 1)
c = a * ((b << 1) - a)
d = b * b + a * a
if n & 1:
return d % m, (c + d) % m
else:
return c % m, d % m
return fib_rec(n)[0]
def is_fib_prp(n):
if n % 5 == 0:
return not fib_mod(n, n)
elif n % 5 == 1 or n % 5 == 4:
return not fib_mod(n-1, n)
else:
return not fib_mod(n+1, n)
It's written in pure Python and is very quick.
The sequence of numbers commonly known as the Fibonacci numbers is just a special case of a general Lucas sequence L(n) = p*L(n-1) - q*L(n-2). The usual Fibonacci numbers are generated by (p,q) = (1,-1). gmpy2.is_fibonacci_prp() accepts arbitrary values for p,q. gmpy2.is_fibonacci(1,-1,n) should match the results of the is_fib_pr(n) given above.
Disclaimer: I maintain gmpy2.

This isn't really a Python problem; it's a math/algorithm problem. You may want to ask it on the Math StackExchange instead.
Also, there is no need for any non-integer arithmetic whatsoever: you're computing floor(log10(x)) which can be done easily with purely integer math. Using arbitrary-precision math will greatly slow this algorithm down and may introduce some odd numerical errors too.
Here's a simple floor_log10(x) implementation:
from __future__ import division # if using Python 2.x
def floor_log10(x):
res = 0
if x < 1:
raise ValueError
while x >= 1:
x //= 10
res += 1
return res

Understanding Blum Blum Shub algorithm. (Python implementation)

Please help me to understand BBS algorithm. I did this implementation:
class EmptySequenseError(Exception):
pass
class BlumBlumShub(object):
def __init__(self, length):
self.length = length
self.primes = e(1000) # Primes obtained by my own Sieve of Eratosthenes implementation.
def get_primes(self):
out_primes = []
while len(out_primes) < 2:
curr_prime = self.primes.pop()
if curr_prime % 4 == 3:
out_primes.append(curr_prime)
return out_primes
def set_random_sequence(self):
p, q = self.get_primes()
m = p * q
self.random_sequence = [((x+1)**2)%m for x in range(self.length)]
def get_random_sequence(self):
if self.random_sequence:
return self.random_sequence
raise EmptySequenseError("Set random sequence before get it!")
And I have several questions. At first I do not want to use random library, it is too naive. My sequence is increasing, it is not absolutely random. How to prevent increasing in returned sequence? And I do not understand this part of the algorithm description:
At each step of the algorithm, some output is derived from xn+1; the output is commonly either the bit parity of xn+1 or one or more of the least significant bits of xn+1.
Please explain to me what does it mean?
Edit summary:
The algorithm is corrected.
Quote substituted to en.wikipedia quote.

for x in range(self.length):
self.random_sequence.append((x ** 2) % m)
Just generates [(x ** 2) % m for x in range(self.length)], which is roughly xn+1 = n2 mod M.
The algorithm is supposed to be: xn+1 = xn2 mod M
Do you see where your version is different?
As for the quote - you don't say where it's from, but Wikipedia has:
At each step of the algorithm, some output is derived from xn+1; the output is commonly either the bit parity of xn+1 or one or more of the least significant bits of xn+1.
It means that xn+1 is the seed for the next iteration, but not the pseudo-random number returned. Instead, the return value is derived from xn+1 by counting its bit parity (this yields either 0 or 1 each iteration), or by taking only some number of top bits.

Blum Blum Shub is described in Chapter Five of the Handbook of Applied Cryptography, Section 5.5.2. There is a lot of helpful stuff about random number generation in that chapter.

I would rather formalize my understanding as an answer.
class BlumBlumShub(object):
def __init__(self, length):
self.length = length
self.primes = e(1000)
def gen_primes(self):
out_primes = []
while len(out_primes) < 2:
curr_prime = self.primes[random.randrange(len(self.primes))]
if curr_prime % 4 == 3:
out_primes.append(curr_prime)
return out_primes
def random_generator(self):
x = random.randrange(1000000)
while self.length:
x += 1
p, q = self.gen_primes()
m = p * q
z = (x**2) % m
self.length -= 1
yield str(bin(z).count('1') % 2)
def get_random_bits(self):
return ''.join(self.random_generator())
BBS is pseudorandom bit generator, it must return random bits, not integers.
Return value is just parity bit of result xn+12 % m operation.
If I wrongly understood something, please explain my mistakes.

Efficient python code for printing the product of divisors of a number

I am trying to solve a problem involving printing the product of all divisors of a given number. The number of test cases is a number 1 <= t <= 300000 , and the number itself can range from 1 <= n <= 500000
I wrote the following code, but it always exceeds the time limit of 2 seconds. Are there any ways to speed up the code ?
from math import sqrt
def divisorsProduct(n):
ProductOfDivisors=1
for i in range(2,int(round(sqrt(n)))+1):
if n%i==0:
ProductOfDivisors*=i
if n/i != i:
ProductOfDivisors*=(n/i)
if ProductOfDivisors <= 9999:
print ProductOfDivisors
else:
result = str(ProductOfDivisors)
print result[len(result)-4:]
T = int(raw_input())
for i in range(1,T+1):
num = int(raw_input())
divisorsProduct(num)
Thank You.

You need to clarify by what you mean by "product of divisors." The code posted in the question doesn't work for any definition yet. This sounds like a homework question. If it is, then perhaps your instructor was expecting you to think outside the code to meet the time goals.
If you mean the product of unique prime divisors, e.g., 72 gives 2*3 = 6, then having a list of primes is the way to go. Just run through the list up to the square root of the number, multiplying present primes into the result. There are not that many, so you could even hard code them into your program.
If you mean the product of all the divisors, prime or not, then it is helpful to think of what the divisors are. You can make serious speed gains over the brute force method suggested in the other answers and yours. I suspect this is what your instructor intended.
If the divisors are ordered in a list, then they occur in pairs that multiply to n -- 1 and n, 2 and n/2, etc. -- except for the case where n is a perfect square, where the square root is a divisor that is not paired with any other.
So the result will be n to the power of half the number of divisors, (regardless of whether or not n is a square).
To compute this, find the prime factorization using your list of primes. That is, find the power of 2 that divides n, then the power of 3, etc. To do this, take out all the 2s, then the 3s, etc.
The number you are taking the factors out of will be getting smaller, so you can do the square root test on the smaller intermediate numbers to see if you need to continue up the list of primes. To gain some speed, test p*p <= m, rather than p <= sqrt(m)
Once you have the prime factorization, it is easy to find the number of divisors. For example, suppose the factorization is 2^i * 3^j * 7^k. Then, since each divisor uses the same prime factors, with exponents less than or equal to those in n including the possibility of 0, the number of divisors is (i+1)(j+1)(k+1).
E.g., 72 = 2^3 * 3^2, so the number of divisors is 4*3 = 12, and their product is 72^6 = 139,314,069,504.
By using math, the algorithm can become much better than O(n). But it is hard to estimate your speed gains ahead of time because of the relatively small size of the n in the input.

You could eliminate the if statement in the loop by only looping to less than the square root, and check for square root integer-ness outside the loop.
It is a rather strange question you pose. I have a hard time imagine a use for it, other than it possibly being an assignment in a course. My first thought was to pre-compute a list of primes and only test against those, but I assume you are quite deliberately counting non-prime factors? I.e., if the number has factors 2 and 3, you are also counting 6.
If you do use a table of pre-computed primes, you would then have to also subsequently include all possible combinations of primes in your result, which gets more complex.
C is really a great language for that sort of thing, because even suboptimal algorithms run really fast.

Okay, I think this is close to the optimal algorithm. It produces the product_of_divisors for each number in range(500000).
import math
def number_of_divisors(maxval=500001):
""" Example: the number of divisors of 12 is 6: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12.
Given a prime factoring of n, the number of divisors of n is the
product of each factor's multiplicity plus one (mpo in my variables).
This function works like the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but marks each
composite n with the multiplicity (plus one) of each prime factor. """
numdivs = [1] * maxval # multiplicative identity
currmpo = [0] * maxval
# standard logic for 2 < p < sqrt(maxval)
for p in range(2, int(math.sqrt(maxval))):
if numdivs[p] == 1: # if p is prime
for exp in range(2,50): # assume maxval < 2^50
pexp = p ** exp
if pexp > maxval:
break
exppo = exp + 1
for comp in range(pexp, maxval, pexp):
currmpo[comp] = exppo
for comp in range(p, maxval, p):
thismpo = currmpo[comp] or 2
numdivs[comp] *= thismpo
currmpo[comp] = 0 # reset currmpo array in place
# abbreviated logic for p > sqrt(maxval)
for p in range(int(math.sqrt(maxval)), maxval):
if numdivs[p] == 1: # if p is prime
for comp in range(p, maxval, p):
numdivs[comp] *= 2
return numdivs
# this initialization times at 7s on my machine
NUMDIV = number_of_divisors()
def product_of_divisors(n):
if NUMDIV[n] % 2 == 0:
# each pair of divisors has product equal to n, for example
# 1*12 * 2*6 * 3*4 = 12**3
return n ** (NUMDIV[n] / 2)
else:
# perfect squares have their square root as an unmatched divisor
return n ** (NUMDIV[n] / 2) * int(math.sqrt(n))
# this loop times at 13s on my machine
for n in range(500000):
a = product_of_divisors(n)
On my very slow machine, it takes 7s to compute the numberofdivisors for each number, then 13s to compute the productofdivisors for each. Of course it can be sped up by translating it into C. (#someone with a fast machine: how long does it take on your machine?)