I would like to calculate:
abcd... mod m
Do you know any efficient way since this number is too big but a , b , c , ... and m fit in a simple 32-bit int.
Any Ideas?
Caveat: This question is different from finding ab mod m.
Also please note that abc is not the same as (ab)c. The later is equal to abc. Exponentiation is right-associative.
abc mod m = abc mod n mod m, where n = φ(m) Euler's totient function.
If m is prime, then n = m-1.
Edit: as Nabb pointed out, this only holds if a is coprime to m. So you would have to check this first.
The answer does not contain full formal mathematical proof of correctness. I assumed that it is unnecessary here. Besides, it would be very illegible on SO, (no MathJax for example).
I will use (just a little bit) specific prime factorization algorithm. It's not best option, but enough.
tl;dr
We want calculate a^x mod m. We will use function modpow(a,x,m). Described below.
If x is small enough (not exponential form or exists p^x | m) just calculate it and return
Split into primes and calculate p^x mod m separately for each prime, using modpow function
Calculate c' = gcd(p^x,m) and t' = totient(m/c')
Calculate w = modpow(x.base, x.exponent, t') + t'
Save pow(p, w - log_p c', m) * c' in A table
Multiple all elements from A and return modulo m
Here pow should look like python's pow.
Main problem:
Because current best answer is about only special case gcd(a,m) = 1, and OP did not consider this assumption in question, I decided to write this answer. I will also use Euler's totient theorem. Quoting wikipedia:
Euler's totient theorem:
If n and a are coprime positive integers, then
where φ(n) is Euler's totient function.
The assumption numbers are co-primeis very important, as Nabb shows in comment. So, firstly we need to ensure that the numbers are co-prime. (For greater clarity assume x = b^(c^...).) Because , where we can factorize a, and separately calculate q1 = (p1^alpha)^x mod m,q2 = (p2^beta)^x mod m... and then calculate answer in easy way (q1 * q2 * q3 * ... mod m). Number has at most o(log a) prime factors, so we will be force to perform at most o(log a) calculations.
In fact we doesn't have to split to every prime factor of a (if not all occur in m with other exponents) and we can combine with same exponent, but it is not noteworthy by now.
Now take a look at (p^z)^x mod m problem, where p is prime. Notice some important observation:
If a,b are positive integers smaller than m and c is some positive integer and , then true is sentence .
Using the above observation, we can receive solution for actual problem. We can easily calculate gcd((p^z)^x, m). If x*z are big, it is number how many times we can divide m by p. Let m' = m /gcd((p^z)^x, m). (Notice (p^z)^x = p^(z*x).) Let c = gcd(p^(zx),m). Now we can easily (look below) calculate w = p^(zx - c) mod m' using Euler's theorem, because this numbers are co-prime! And after, using above observation, we can receive p^(zx) mod m. From above assumption wc mod m'c = p^(zx) mod m, so the answer for now is p^(zx) mod m = wc and w,c are easy to calculate.
Therefore we can easily calculate a^x mod m.
Calculate a^x mod m using Euler's theorem
Now assume a,m are co-prime. If we want calculate a^x mod m, we can calculate t = totient(m) and notice a^x mod m = a^(x mod t) mod m. It can be helpful, if x is big and we know only specific expression of x, like for example x = 7^200.
Look at example x = b^c. we can calculate t = totient(m) and x' = b^c mod t using exponentiation by squaring algorithm in Θ(log c) time. And after (using same algorithm) a^x' mod m, which is equal to solution.
If x = b^(c^(d^...) we will solve it recursively. Firstly calculate t1 = totient(m), after t2 = totient(t1) and so on. For example take x=b^(c^d). If t1=totient(m), a^x mod m = a^(b^(c^d) mod t1), and we are able to say b^(c^d) mod t1 = b^(c^d mod t2) mod t1, where t2 = totient(t1). everything we are calculating using exponentiation by squaring algorithm.
Note: If some totient isn't co-prime to exponent, it is necessary to use same trick, as in main problem (in fact, we should forget that it's exponent and recursively solve problem, like in main problem). In above example, if t2 isn't relatively prime with c, we have to use this trick.
Calculate φ(n)
Notice simple facts:
if gcd(a,b)=1, then φ(ab) = φ(a)*φ(b)
if p is prime φ(p^k)=(p-1)*p^(k-1)
Therefore we can factorize n (ak. n = p1^k1 * p2^k2 * ...) and separately calculate φ(p1^k1),φ(p2^k2),... using fact 2. Then combine this using fact 1. φ(n)=φ(p1^k1)*φ(p2^k2)*...
It is worth remembering that, if we will calculate totient repeatedly, we may want to use Sieve of Eratosthenes and save prime numbers in table. It will reduce the constant.
python example: (it is correct, for the same reason as this factorization algorithm)
def totient(n) : # n - unsigned int
result = 1
p = 2 #prime numbers - 'iterator'
while p**2 <= n :
if(n%p == 0) : # * (p-1)
result *= (p-1)
n /= p
while(n%p == 0) : # * p^(k-1)
result *= p
n /= p
p += 1
if n != 1 :
result *= (n-1)
return result # in O(sqrt(n))
Case: abc mod m
Cause it's in fact doing the same thing many times, I believe this case will show you how to solve this generally.
Firstly, we have to split a into prime powers. Best representation will be pair <number,
exponent>.
c++11 example:
std::vector<std::tuple<unsigned, unsigned>> split(unsigned n) {
std::vector<std::tuple<unsigned, unsigned>> result;
for(unsigned p = 2; p*p <= n; ++p) {
unsigned current = 0;
while(n % p == 0) {
current += 1;
n /= p;
}
if(current != 0)
result.emplace_back(p, current);
}
if(n != 1)
result.emplace_back(n, 1);
return result;
}
After split, we have to calculate (p^z)^(b^c) mod m=p^(z*(b^c)) mod m for every pair. Firstly we should check, if p^(z*(b^c)) | m. If, yes the answer is just (p^z)^(b^c), but it's possible only in case in which z,b,c are very small. I believe I don't have to show code example to it.
And finally if p^(z*b^c) > m we have to calculate the answer. Firstly, we have to calculate c' = gcd(m, p^(z*b^c)). After we are able to calculate t = totient(m'). and (z*b^c - c' mod t). It's easy way to get an answer.
function modpow(p, z, b, c, m : integers) # (p^z)^(b^c) mod m
c' = 0
m' = m
while m' % p == 0 :
c' += 1
m' /= p
# now m' = m / gcd((p^z)^(b^c), m)
t = totient(m')
exponent = z*(b^c)-c' mod t
return p^c' * (p^exponent mod m')
And below Python working example:
def modpow(p, z, b, c, m) : # (p^z)^(b^c) mod m
cp = 0
while m % p == 0 :
cp += 1
m /= p # m = m' now
t = totient(m)
exponent = ((pow(b,c,t)*z)%t + t - (cp%t))%t
# exponent = z*(b^c)-cp mod t
return pow(p, cp)*pow(p, exponent, m)
Using this function, we can easily calculate (p^z)^(b^c) mod m, after we just have to multiple all results (mod m), we can also calculate everything on an ongoing basis. Example below. (I hope I didn't make mistake, writing.) Only assumption, b,c are big enough (b^c > log(m) ak. each p^(z*b^k) doesn't divide m), it's simple check and I don't see point to make clutter by it.
def solve(a,b,c,m) : # split and solve
result = 1
p = 2 # primes
while p**2 <= a :
z = 0
while a % p == 0 :
# calculate z
a /= p
z += 1
if z != 0 :
result *= modpow(p,z,b,c,m)
result %= m
p += 1
if a != 1 : # Possible last prime
result *= modpow(a, 1, b, c, m)
return result % m
Looks, like it works.
DEMO and it's correct!
Since for any relationship a=x^y, the relationship is invariant with respect to the numeric base you are using (base 2, base 6, base 16, etc).
Since the mod N operation is equivalent to extracting the least significant digit (LSD) in base N
Since the LSD of the result A in base N can only be affected by the LSD of X in base N, and not digits in higher places. (e.g. 34*56 = 30*50+30*6+50*4+4*5 = 10*(3+50+3*6+5*4)+4*6)
Therefore, from LSD(A)=LSD(X^Y) we can deduce
LSD(A)=LSD(LSD(X)^Y)
Therefore
A mod N = ((X mod N) ^ Y) mod N
and
(X ^ Y) mod N = ((X mod N) ^ Y) mod N)
Therefore you can do the mod before each power step, which keeps your result in the range of integers.
This assumes a is not negative, and for any x^y, a^y < MAXINT
This answer answers the wrong question. (alex)
Modular Exponentiation is a correct way to solve this problem, here's a little bit of hint:
To find abcd % m
You have to start with calculating
a % m, then ab % m, then abc % m and then abcd % m ... (you get the idea)
To find ab % m, you basically need two ideas: [Let B=floor(b/2)]
ab = (aB)2 if b is even OR ab = (aB)2*a if b is odd.
(X*Y)%m = ((X%m) * (Y%m)) % m
(% = mod)
Therefore,
if b is even
ab % m = (aB % m)2 % m
or if b is odd
ab % m = (((aB % m)2) * (a % m)) % m
So if you knew the value of aB, you can calculate this value.
To find aB, apply similar approach, dividing B until you reach 1.
e.g. To calculate 1613 % 11:
1613 % 11 = (16 % 11)13 % 11 = 513 % 11
= (56 % 11) * (56 % 11) * (5 % 11) <---- (I)
To find 56 % 11:
56 % 11 = ((53 % 11) * (53 % 11)) % 11 <----(II)
To find 53%11:
53 % 11 = ((51 % 11) * (51 % 11) * (5 % 11)) % 11
= (((5 * 5) % 11) * 5) % 11 = ((25 % 11) * 5) % 11 = (3 * 5) % 11 = 15 % 11 = 4
Plugging this value to (II) gives
56 % 11 = (((4 * 4) % 11) * 5) % 11 = ((16 % 11) * 5) % 11 = (5 * 5) % 11 = 25 % 11 = 3
Plugging this value to (I) gives
513 % 11 = ((3 % 11) * (3 % 11) * 5) % 11 = ((9 % 11) * 5) % 11 = 45 % 11 = 4
This way 513 % 11 = 4
With this you can calculate anything of form a513 % 11 and so on...
Look at the behavior of A^X mod M as X increases. It must eventually go into a cycle. Suppose the cycle has length P and starts after N steps. Then X >= N implies A^X = A^(X+P) = A^(X%P + (-N)%P + N) (mod M). Therefore we can compute A^B^C by computing y=B^C, z = y < N ? y : y%P + (-N)%P + N, return A^z (mod m).
Notice that we can recursively apply this strategy up the power tree, because the derived equation either has an exponent < M or an exponent involving a smaller exponent tower with a smaller dividend.
The only question is if you can efficiently compute N and P given A and M. Notice that overestimating N is fine. We can just set N to M and things will work out. P is a bit harder. If A and M are different primes, then P=M-1. If A has all of M's prime factors, then we get stuck at 0 and P=1. I'll leave it as an exercise to figure that out, because I don't know how.
///Returns equivalent to list.reverse().aggregate(1, acc,item => item^acc) % M
func PowerTowerMod(Link<int> list, int M, int upperB = M)
requires M > 0, upperB >= M
var X = list.Item
if list.Next == null: return X
var P = GetPeriodSomehow(base: X, mod: M)
var e = PowerTowerMod(list.Next, P, M)
if e^X < upperB then return e^X //todo: rewrite e^X < upperB so it doesn't blowup for large x
return ModPow(X, M + (e-M) % P, M)
Tacet's answer is good, but there are substantial simplifications possible.
The powers of x, mod m, are preperiodic. If x is relatively prime to m, the powers of x are periodic, but even without that assumption, the part before the period is not long, at most the maximum of the exponents in the prime factorization of m, which is at most log_2 m. The length of the period divides phi(m), and in fact lambda(m), where lambda is Carmichael's function, the maximum multiplicative order mod m. This can be significantly smaller than phi(m). Lambda(m) can be computed quickly from the prime factorization of m, just as phi(m) can. Lambda(m) is the GCD of lambda(p_i^e_i) over all prime powers p_i^e_i in the prime factorization of m, and for odd prime powers, lambda(p_i^e_i) = phi(p_i^e^i). lambda(2)=1, lamnda(4)=2, lambda(2^n)=2^(n-2) for larger powers of 2.
Define modPos(a,n) to be the representative of the congruence class of a in {0,1,..,n-1}. For nonnegative a, this is just a%n. For a negative, for some reason a%n is defined to be negative, so modPos(a,n) is (a%n)+n.
Define modMin(a,n,min) to be the least positive integer congruent to a mod n that is at least min. For a positive, you can compute this as min+modPos(a-min,n).
If b^c^... is smaller than log_2 m (and we can check whether this inequality holds by recursively taking logarithms), then we can simply compute a^b^c^... Otherwise, a^b^c^... mod m = a^modMin(b^c^..., lambda(m), [log_2 m])) mod m = a^modMin(b^c^... mod lambda(m), lambda(m),[log_2 m]).
For example, suppose we want to compute 2^3^4^5 mod 100. Note that 3^4^5 only has 489 digits, so this is doable by other methods, but it's big enough that you don't want to compute it directly. However, by the methods I gave here, you can compute 2^3^4^5 mod 100 by hand.
Since 3^4^5 > log_2 100,
2^3^4^5 mod 100
= 2^modMin(3^4^5,lambda(100),6) mod 100
= 2^modMin(3^4^5 mod lambda(100), lambda(100),6) mod 100
= 2^modMin(3^4^5 mod 20, 20,6) mod 100.
Let's compute 3^4^5 mod 20. Since 4^5 > log_2 20,
3^4^5 mod 20
= 3^modMin(4^5,lambda(20),4) mod 20
= 3^modMin(4^5 mod lambda(20),lambda(20),4) mod 20
= 3^modMin(4^5 mod 4, 4, 4) mod 20
= 3^modMin(0,4,4) mod 20
= 3^4 mod 20
= 81 mod 20
= 1
We can plug this into the previous calculation:
2^3^4^5 mod 100
= 2^modMin(3^4^5 mod 20, 20,6) mod 100
= 2^modMin(1,20,6) mod 100
= 2^21 mod 100
= 2097152 mod 100
= 52.
Note that 2^(3^4^5 mod 20) mod 100 = 2^1 mod 100 = 2, which is not correct. You can't reduce down to the preperiodic part of the powers of the base.
Related
Today I was trying to solve a problem that involved modular arithmetic. I was not able to solve it. So I looked it up on Geeks for Geeks
The above image shows what the author did. I know modular addition for two numbers
(a + b) % m = (a % m + b % m) % m
This works for any positive values of a and b
When I consider the equation the author used in the image.
a % k + b % k = 0
I substituted some random values for a , b and k to see if it really works. It turns out it fails for the input values a = 2, b = 5 and k = 7.
2 % 7 + 5 % 7 = 7 ≠ 0
When I considered the last equation. It worked.
b % k = (k - a % k) % k
(5 % 7) = (7 - 2 % 7) % 7
5 % 7 = 5 % 7
(a + b) % k = c
When I solved the above equation with the same idea as the author, I got
(a + b) % k = c
a % k + b % k = c
b % k = (c - a % k + k) % k
It works for any positive values of a, b, c and k
In the equation,
(a + b) % k = (a % k + b % k) % k
Can I just ignore the last k and proceed while expanding (a + b) % k ?. I wonder how the absence of the last k doesn't affect the final result
No, a = b = 0 is a counterexample.
Indeed, the final formula is incorrect, assuming that % denotes the remainder of truncating division. Let a = 1 and b = -1. (In Python, or for nonnegative integers, it's OK.)
This is why mathematicians prefer to deal in equivalence mod K, which avoids the issue of where to put the mod operator.
I am trying to solve a problem which is described below,
Given value of f(0) and k , which are integers.
I need to find value of f( T ). where T<=1010
Recursive function is,
f(n) = 2*f(n-1) , if 4*f(n-1) <=k
k - ( 2*f(n-1) ) , if 4*f(n-1) > k
My efforts,
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(){
long k,f0,i;
cin>>k>>f0;
long operation ;
cin>>operation;
long answer=f0;
for(i=1;i<=operation;i++){
answer=(4*answer <= k )?(2*answer):(k-(2*answer));
}
cout<<answer;
return 0;
}
My code gives me right answer. But, The code will run 1010 time in worst case that gives me Time Limit Exceed. I need more efficient solution for this problem. Please help me. I don't know the correct algorithm.
If 2f(0) < k then you can compute this function in O(log n) time (using exponentiation by squaring modulo k).
r = f(0) * 2^n mod k
return 2 * r >= k ? k - r : r
You can prove this by induction. The induction hypothesis is that 0 <= f(n) < k/2, and that the above code fragment computes f(n).
Here's a Python program which checks random test cases, comparing a naive implementation (f) with an optimized one (g).
def f(n, k, z):
r = z
for _ in xrange(n):
if 4*r <= k:
r = 2 * r
else:
r = k - 2 * r
return r
def g(n, k, z):
r = (z * pow(2, n, k)) % k
if 2 * r >= k:
r = k - r
return r
import random
errs = 0
while errs < 20:
k = random.randrange(100, 10000000)
n = random.randrange(100000)
z = random.randrange(k//2)
a1 = f(n, k, z)
a2 = g(n, k, z)
if a1 != a2:
print n, k, z, a1, a2
errs += 1
print '.',
Can you use methmetical solution before progamming and compulating?
Actually,
f(n) = f0*2^(n-1) , if f(n-1)*4 <= k
k - f0*2^(n-1) , if f(n-1)*4 > k
thus, your code will write like this:
condition = f0*pow(2, operation-2)
answer = condition*4 =< k? condition*2: k - condition*2
For a simple loop, your answer looks pretty tight; one could optimise a little bit using answer<<2 instead of 4*answer, and answer<<1 for 2*answer, but quite possibly your compiler is already doing that. If you're blowing the time with this, it might be necessary to reduce the loop itself somehow.
I can't figure out a mathematical pattern that #Shannon was going for, but I'm thinking we could exploit the fact that this function will sooner or later cycle. If the cycle is short enough, then we could short the loop by just getting the answer at the same point in the cycle.
So let's get some cycle detection equipment in the form of Brent's algorithm, and see if we can cut the loop to reasonable levels.
def brent(f, x0):
# main phase: search successive powers of two
power = lam = 1
tortoise = x0
hare = f(x0) # f(x0) is the element/node next to x0.
while tortoise != hare:
if power == lam: # time to start a new power of two?
tortoise = hare
power *= 2
lam = 0
hare = f(hare)
lam += 1
# Find the position of the first repetition of length λ
mu = 0
tortoise = hare = x0
for i in range(lam):
# range(lam) produces a list with the values 0, 1, ... , lam-1
hare = f(hare)
# The distance between the hare and tortoise is now λ.
# Next, the hare and tortoise move at same speed until they agree
while tortoise != hare:
tortoise = f(tortoise)
hare = f(hare)
mu += 1
return lam, mu
f0 = 2
k = 198779
t = 10000000000
def f(x):
if 4 * x <= k:
return 2 * x
else:
return k - 2 * x
lam, mu = brent(f, f0)
t2 = t
if t >= mu + lam: # if T is past the cycle's first loop,
t2 = (t - mu) % lam + mu # find the equivalent place in the first loop
x = f0
for i in range(t2):
x = f(x)
print("Cycle start: %d; length: %d" % (mu, lam))
print("Equivalent result at index: %d" % t2)
print("Loop iterations skipped: %d" % (t - t2))
print("Result: %d" % x)
As opposed to the other proposed answers, this approach actually could use a memo array to speed up the process, since the start of the function is actually calculated multiple times (in particular, inside brent), or it may be irrelevant, depending on how big the cycle happens to be.
The algorithm you proposed already has O(n).
To come up with more efficient algorithms, there is not that much direction we can go about. Some typical options we have
1.Decease the coefficients of the linear term( but I doubt it would make a difference in this case
2.Change to O(Logn)(typically use some sort of divide and conquer technique)
3.Change to O(1)
In this case, we can do the last one.
The recursion function is a piece-wise function
f(n) = 2*f(n-1) , if 4*f(n-1) <=k
k - ( 2*f(n-1) ) , if 4*f(n-1) > k
Let's tackle it by case:
case 1: if 4*f(n-1) <= k (1)(assuming the starting index is zero)
this is a obvious a geometry series
a_n = 2*a_n-1
Therefore, have the formula
Sn = 2^(n-1)f(0) ----()
Case 2: if 4*f(n-1) > k (2), we have
a_n = -2a_n-1 + k
Assuming, a_j is the element in the sequence which just satisfy condition (2)
Nestedly sub in an_1 to the formula, you will obtain the equation
an = k -2k +4k -8k... +(-2)^(n-j)* a_j
k -2k 4k -8... is another gemo series
Sn = k*(1-2^(n-j))/(1-2) ---gemo series sum formula with starting value k and ratio = -2
Therefore, we have a formula for an in the case 2
an = k * (1-2^(n-j))/(1-2) + (-2)^(n-j) * a_j ----（**）
All we left to do it to find aj which just dissatisfy condition (1) and satisfy (2)
This can be obtained in constant time again using the formula we have for case 1:
find n such that, 4*an = 4*Sn = 4*2^(n-1)*f(0)
solve for n: 4*2^(n-1)*f(0) = k, if n is not integer, take ceiling of n
In my first attempt to solve this question, I had wrong assumption that the value of the sequence is monotonically increasing but in fact the sequence might jump between case 1 and case 2. Therefore, there might not be constant algorithm to solve the problem.
However, we can use utilize the result above to skip iterative update complexity.
The overall algorithm will look something like:
start with T, K, and f(0)
compute n that make the condition switch using either (*) or (**)
update f(0) with f(n), update T - n
repeat
terminate when T-n = 0(the last iteration might over compute causing T-n<0, therefore, you need to go back a little bit if that happen)
Create a map that can store your results. Before finding f(n) check in that map, if solution is already existed or not.
If exists, use that solution.
Otherwise find it, store it for future use.
For C++:
Definition:
map<long,long>result;
Insertion:
result[key]=value
Accessing:
value=result[key];
Checking:
map<long,long>::iterator it=result.find(key);
if(it==result.end())
{
//key was not found, find the solution and insert into result
}
else
{
return result[key];
}
Use above technique for better solution.
I searched the answer for this question, i got various useful links but when i implemented the idea, i am getting wrong answer.
This is what I understood :
If m is prime, then it is very simple. Inverse modulus of any number 'a' can be calculated as:inverse_mod(a) = (a^(m-2))%m
but when m is not prime, the we have to find the prime factors of m ,
i.e. m= (p1^a1)*(p2^a2)*....*(pk^ak). Here p1,p2,....,pk are the prime factors of m and a1,a2,....,ak are their respective powers.
then we have to calculate :
m1 = a%(p1^a1),
m2 = a%(p2^a2),
.......
mk = a%(pk^ak)
then we have to combine all these remainders using Chinese Remainder Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_remainder_theorem)
I implemented this idea for m=1000,000,000,but still i am getting Wrong Answer.
Here is my explanation for m=1000,000,000 which is not prime
m= (2^9)*(5^9) where 2 and 5 are m's prime factors.
let a is the number for which have to calculate inverse modulo m.
m1 = a%(2^9) = a^512
m2 = a%(5^9) = a^1953125
Our answer will be = m1*e1 + m2*e2
where e1= { 1 (mod 512)
0 (mod 1953125)
}
and e2= { 1 (mod 1953125)
0 (mod 512)
}
Now to calculate 'e1' and 'e2' , I used Extended Euclidean Algorithm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Euclidean_algorithm
The Code is :
void extend_euclid(lld a,lld b,lld& x,lld& y)
{
if(a%b==0)
{
x=0;
y=1;
return ;
}
extend_euclid(b,a%b,x,y);
int tmp=x;
x=y;
y=tmp-(a/b)*y;
}
Now e1= 1953125*y and e2=512*y;
So, Our final answer will be = m1*e1 + m2*e2 .
But after doing all this, I am getting wrong answer.
please explain and point out any mistakes which I have made while understanding Chinese Remainder Theorem .
Thank You Very Much.
The inverse of a modulo m only exists if a and m are coprime. If they are not coprime, nothing will help. For example: what is the inverse of 2 mod 4?
2*0 = 0 mod 4
2*1 = 2 mod 4
2*2 = 0 mod 4
2*3 = 2 mod 4
So no inverse.
This can indeed be computed by using the extended euclidean algorithm (although I'm not sure if you're doing it right), but the simplest way, in my opinion, is by using Euler's theorem:
a^phi(m) = 1 (mod m)
a*a^(phi(m) - 1) = 1 (mod m)
=> a^(phi(m) - 1) is the invers of a (mod m)
Where phi is the totient function:
phi(x) = x * (1 - 1/f1)(1 - 1/f2)...(1 - 1/fk)
where fi > 1 is a divisor of x (not necessarily a prime divisor)
phi(36) = 36(1 - 1/2)(1 - 1/3)(1 - 1/4)(1 - 1/6)(1 - 1/9)(1 - 1/12)(1 - 1/18)(1 - 1/36)
So it can be computed in O(sqrt n).
The exponentiation can then be computed using exponentiation by squaring.
If you want to read about how you can use the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the inverse faster, read this. I don't think the Chinese remainder theorem can help here.
I believe the following function will do what you want. Change from long to int if appropriate. It returns -1 if there is no inverse, otherwise returns a positive number in the range [0..m).
public static long inverse(long a, long m) { // mult. inverse of a mod m
long r = m;
long nr = a;
long t = 0;
long nt = 1;
long tmp;
while (nr != 0) {
long q = r/nr;
tmp = nt; nt = t - q*nt; t = tmp;
tmp = nr; nr = r - q*nr; r = tmp;
}
if (r > 1) return -1; // no inverse
if (t < 0) t += m;
return t;
}
I can't follow your algorithm to see exactly what is wrong with it, but I have a few general comments: Euler's totient function is rather slow to calculate in general, depending as it does on prime factorizations. The Chinese Remainder Theorem is useful in many contexts for combining results mod coprimes but it's not necessary here and again overcomplicates this particular issue because you end up having to factor your modulus, a very slow operation. And it's faster to implement GCD and modular inverse in a loop, rather than using recursion, though of course the two methods are equally effective.
If you're trying to compute a^(-1) mod p^k for p prime, first compute a^(-1) mod p. Given an x such that ax = 1 (mod p^(k-1)), you can "Hensel lift"---you're looking for the y between 0 and p-1 such that a(x + y p^(k-1)) = 1 (mod p^k). Doing some algebra, you find that you're looking for the y such that a y p^(k-1) = 1 - ax (mod p^k)---i.e. a y = (1 - ax)/p^(k-1) (mod p), where the division by p^(k-1) is exact. You can work this out using a modular inverse for a (mod p).
(Alternatively, simply notice that a^(p^(k-1)(p-1) - 1) = 1 (mod p^k). I mention Hensel lifting because it works in much greater generality.)
For a given number n (we know that n = p^a * q^b, for some prime numbers p,q and some integers a,b) and a given number φ(n) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_totient_function ) find p,q,a and b.
The catch is that n, and φ(n) have about 200 digits so the algorithm have to be very fast.
It seems to be very hard problem and I completely don't know how to use φ(n).
How to approach this?
For n = p^a * q^b, the totient is φ(n) = (p-1)*p^(a-1) * (q-1)*q^(b-1). Without loss of generality, p < q.
So gcd(n,φ(n)) = p^(a-1) * q^(b-1) if p does not divide q-1 and gcd(n,φ(n)) = p^a * q^(b-1) if p divides q-1.
In the first case, we have n/gcd(n,φ(n)) = p*q and φ(n)/gcd(n,φ(n)) = (p-1)*(q-1) = p*q + 1 - (p+q), thus you have x = p*q = n/gcd(n,φ(n)) and y = p+q = n/gcd(n,φ(n)) + 1 - φ(n)/gcd(n,φ(n)). Then finding p and q is simple: y^2 - 4*x = (q-p)^2, so q = (y + sqrt(y^2 - 4*x))/2, and p = y-q. Then finding the exponents a and b is trivial.
In the second case, n/gcd(n,φ(n)) = q. Then you can easily find the exponent b, dividing by q until the division leaves a remainder, and thus obtain p^a. Dividing φ(n) by (q-1)*q^(b-1) gives you z = (p-1)*p^(a-1). Then p^a - z = p^(a-1) and p = p^a/(p^a-z). Finding the exponent a is again trivial.
So it remains to decide which case you have. You have case 2 if and only if n/gcd(n,φ(n)) is a prime.
For that, you need a decent primality test. Or you can first suppose that you have case 1, and if that doesn't work out, conclude that you have case 2.
Try working out what n / (n - φ(n)) is.
Follow up:
n / (n - φ(n)) = pq. You just keep dividing n by pq.
To test whether a number is prime or not, why do we have to test whether it is divisible only up to the square root of that number?
If a number n is not a prime, it can be factored into two factors a and b:
n = a * b
Now a and b can't be both greater than the square root of n, since then the product a * b would be greater than sqrt(n) * sqrt(n) = n. So in any factorization of n, at least one of the factors must be smaller than the square root of n, and if we can't find any factors less than or equal to the square root, n must be a prime.
Let's say m = sqrt(n) then m × m = n. Now if n is not a prime then n can be written as n = a × b, so m × m = a × b. Notice that m is a real number whereas n, a and b are natural numbers.
Now there can be 3 cases:
a > m ⇒ b < m
a = m ⇒ b = m
a < m ⇒ b > m
In all 3 cases, min(a, b) ≤ m. Hence if we search till m, we are bound to find at least one factor of n, which is enough to show that n is not prime.
Because if a factor is greater than the square root of n, the other factor that would multiply with it to equal n is necessarily less than the square root of n.
Suppose n is not a prime number (greater than 1). So there are numbers a and b such that
n = ab (1 < a <= b < n)
By multiplying the relation a<=b by a and b we get:
a^2 <= ab
ab <= b^2
Therefore: (note that n=ab)
a^2 <= n <= b^2
Hence: (Note that a and b are positive)
a <= sqrt(n) <= b
So if a number (greater than 1) is not prime and we test divisibility up to square root of the number, we will find one of the factors.
It's all really just basic uses of Factorization and Square Roots.
It may appear to be abstract, but in reality it simply lies with the fact that a non-prime-number's maximum possible factorial would have to be its square root because:
sqrroot(n) * sqrroot(n) = n.
Given that, if any whole number above 1 and below or up to sqrroot(n) divides evenly into n, then n cannot be a prime number.
Pseudo-code example:
i = 2;
is_prime = true;
while loop (i <= sqrroot(n))
{
if (n % i == 0)
{
is_prime = false;
exit while;
}
++i;
}
Let's suppose that the given integer N is not prime,
Then N can be factorized into two factors a and b , 2 <= a, b < N such that N = a*b.
Clearly, both of them can't be greater than sqrt(N) simultaneously.
Let us assume without loss of generality that a is smaller.
Now, if you could not find any divisor of N belonging in the range [2, sqrt(N)], what does that mean?
This means that N does not have any divisor in [2, a] as a <= sqrt(N).
Therefore, a = 1 and b = n and hence By definition, N is prime.
...
Further reading if you are not satisfied:
Many different combinations of (a, b) may be possible. Let's say they are:
(a1, b1), (a2, b2), (a3, b3), ..... , (ak, bk). Without loss of generality, assume ai < bi, 1<= i <=k.
Now, to be able to show that N is not prime it is sufficient to show that none of ai can be factorized further. And we also know that ai <= sqrt(N) and thus you need to check till sqrt(N) which will cover all ai. And hence you will be able to conclude whether or not N is prime.
...
So to check whether a number N is Prime or not.
We need to only check if N is divisible by numbers<=SQROOT(N). This is because, if we factor N into any 2 factors say X and Y, ie. N=XY.
Each of X and Y cannot be less than SQROOT(N) because then, XY < N
Each of X and Y cannot be greater than SQROOT(N) because then, X*Y > N
Therefore one factor must be less than or equal to SQROOT(N) ( while the other factor is greater than or equal to SQROOT(N) ).
So to check if N is Prime we need only check those numbers <= SQROOT(N).
Let's say we have a number "a", which is not prime [not prime/composite number means - a number which can be divided evenly by numbers other than 1 or itself. For example, 6 can be divided evenly by 2, or by 3, as well as by 1 or 6].
6 = 1 × 6 or 6 = 2 × 3
So now if "a" is not prime then it can be divided by two other numbers and let's say those numbers are "b" and "c". Which means
a=b*c.
Now if "b" or "c" , any of them is greater than square root of "a "than multiplication of "b" & "c" will be greater than "a".
So, "b" or "c" is always <= square root of "a" to prove the equation "a=b*c".
Because of the above reason, when we test if a number is prime or not, we only check until square root of that number.
Given any number n, then one way to find its factors is to get its square root p:
sqrt(n) = p
Of course, if we multiply p by itself, then we get back n:
p*p = n
It can be re-written as:
a*b = n
Where p = a = b. If a increases, then b decreases to maintain a*b = n. Therefore, p is the upper limit.
Update: I am re-reading this answer again today and it became clearer to me more. The value p does not necessarily mean an integer because if it is, then n would not be a prime. So, p could be a real number (ie, with fractions). And instead of going through the whole range of n, now we only need to go through the whole range of p. The other p is a mirror copy so in effect we halve the range. And then, now I am seeing that we can actually continue re-doing the square root and doing it to p to further half the range.
Let n be non-prime. Therefore, it has at least two integer factors greater than 1. Let f be the smallest of n's such factors. Suppose f > sqrt n. Then n/f is an integer ≤ sqrt n, thus smaller than f. Therefore, f cannot be n's smallest factor. Reductio ad absurdum; n's smallest factor must be ≤ sqrt n.
Any composite number is a product of primes.
Let say n = p1 * p2, where p2 > p1 and they are primes.
If n % p1 === 0 then n is a composite number.
If n % p2 === 0 then guess what n % p1 === 0 as well!
So there is no way that if n % p2 === 0 but n % p1 !== 0 at the same time.
In other words if a composite number n can be divided evenly by
p2,p3...pi (its greater factor) it must be divided by its lowest factor p1 too.
It turns out that the lowest factor p1 <= Math.square(n) is always true.
Yes, as it was properly explained above, it's enough to iterate up to Math.floor of a number's square root to check its primality (because sqrt covers all possible cases of division; and Math.floor, because any integer above sqrt will already be beyond its range).
Here is a runnable JavaScript code snippet that represents a simple implementation of this approach – and its "runtime-friendliness" is good enough for handling pretty big numbers (I tried checking both prime and not prime numbers up to 10**12, i.e. 1 trillion, compared results with the online database of prime numbers and encountered no errors or lags even on my cheap phone):
function isPrime(num) {
if (num % 2 === 0 || num < 3 || !Number.isSafeInteger(num)) {
return num === 2;
} else {
const sqrt = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(num));
for (let i = 3; i <= sqrt; i += 2) {
if (num % i === 0) return false;
}
return true;
}
}
<label for="inp">Enter a number and click "Check!":</label><br>
<input type="number" id="inp"></input>
<button onclick="alert(isPrime(+document.getElementById('inp').value) ? 'Prime' : 'Not prime')" type="button">Check!</button>
To test the primality of a number, n, one would expect a loop such as following in the first place :
bool isPrime = true;
for(int i = 2; i < n; i++){
if(n%i == 0){
isPrime = false;
break;
}
}
What the above loop does is this : for a given 1 < i < n, it checks if n/i is an integer (leaves remainder 0). If there exists an i for which n/i is an integer, then we can be sure that n is not a prime number, at which point the loop terminates. If for no i, n/i is an integer, then n is prime.
As with every algorithm, we ask : Can we do better ?
Let us see what is going on in the above loop.
The sequence of i goes : i = 2, 3, 4, ... , n-1
And the sequence of integer-checks goes : j = n/i, which is n/2, n/3, n/4, ... , n/(n-1)
If for some i = a, n/a is an integer, then n/a = k (integer)
or n = ak, clearly n > k > 1 (if k = 1, then a = n, but i never reaches n; and if k = n, then a = 1, but i starts form 2)
Also, n/k = a, and as stated above, a is a value of i so n > a > 1.
So, a and k are both integers between 1 and n (exclusive). Since, i reaches every integer in that range, at some iteration i = a, and at some other iteration i = k. If the primality test of n fails for min(a,k), it will also fail for max(a,k). So we need to check only one of these two cases, unless min(a,k) = max(a,k) (where two checks reduce to one) i.e., a = k , at which point a*a = n, which implies a = sqrt(n).
In other words, if the primality test of n were to fail for some i >= sqrt(n) (i.e., max(a,k)), then it would also fail for some i <= n (i.e., min(a,k)). So, it would suffice if we run the test for i = 2 to sqrt(n).