I know this may seem like a math question but i just saw this in a contest and I really want to know how to solve it.
We have
a (mod c)
and
b (mod c)
and we're looking for the value of the quotient
(a/b) (mod c)
Any ideas?
In the ring of integers modulo C, these equations are equivalent:
A / B (mod C)
A * (1/B) (mod C)
A * B-1(mod C).
Thus you need to find B-1, the multiplicative inverse of B modulo C. You can find it using e.g. extended Euclidian algorithm.
Note that not every number has a multiplicative inverse for the given modulus.
Specifically, B-1 exists if and only if gcd(B, C) = 1 (i.e. B and C are coprime).
See also
Wikipedia/Modular multiplicative inverse
Wikipedia/Extended Euclidian algorithm
Modular multiplicative inverse: Example
Suppose we want to find the multiplicative inverse of 3 modulo 11.
That is, we want to find
x = 3-1(mod 11)
x = 1/3 (mod 11)
3x = 1 (mod 11)
Using extended Euclidian algorithm, you will find that:
x = 4 (mod 11)
Thus, the modular multiplicative inverse of 3 modulo 11 is 4. In other words:
A / 3 == A * 4 (mod 11)
Naive algorithm: brute force search
One way to solve this:
3x = 1 (mod 11)
Is to simply try x for all values 0..11, and see if the equation holds true. For small modulus, this algorithm may be acceptable, but extended Euclidian algorithm is much better asymptotically.
There are potentially many answers. When all you have is k = B mod C, then B could be any k+CN for all integer N.
This means B could potentially be very large. So large, in fact, to make A/B approach zero.
However, that's just one way to respond.
I think it can be written as(But not sure)
(a/b)%c = ((a)%(b*c))/b
Related
a^ b mod c
I know how to solve if c is prime, what will be the approach if c is not prime.
Any mathematical approach.
Assuming the factorization of c is known, you can compute the Euler totient value phi(c) and know that with that number, but only if a and c have no common divisors,
a^b == a^( b mod phi(c) ) mod c
Thus if b is, as in your original edit, some very very large Fibonacci number, you have to compute this number with the algorithm of your choice with all arithmetic operations mod phi(c). This at the same time ensures that the exponent stays inside the same number format as used for c and that the complexity of the exponentiation is reduced.
I want to know, why this is O(n2) for 1+2+3+...+n?
For example, 1+2+3+4 = 4·(4+1)/2 = 10 but 42=16, so how come it's O(n2)?
In Big-O notation you forget about constant factors.
In your example S(n) = 1+2+...+n = n·(n+1)/2 is in O(n2) since you can find a constant number c with
S(n) < c · n2 for all n > n0
(just choose c = 1).
Notice: Big-O notation is an upper bound, i.e. S(n) grows not faster than n2.
Notice also, that S(n) also grows obviously not faster than n3 so it is also in O(n3).
Some additional:
You can also proof the other way around that n2 is in O(S(n)).
n2 < c·S(n) = c·n·(n+1)/2 holds for any c ≥ 2 for all n
So n2 is in O(S(n)). This means both functions grow asymtoticly equal. You can wirt this as S(n) is in Θ(n2).
When computing O(n) n(n-1)/2 is the same as n^2 since it has the highest complexity
1+2+3+...+n Sum of this equation is n(n+1)/2
Means it is n^2+n/2 therefore O(n^2).
Complexity,Big O will look at the biggest factor in the equation because logically it is the one that takes most time.( think of it in a computer program)
Recently i solved a problem where i have to compute (a-b)%n.The results were self explanatory when a-b is an positive number but for negative numbers the results that i got seems confusing..i just wanted to know how can we calculate this result for negative numbers.
Any links dealing with modulo operator properties are most welcome.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation
In many programming languages (C, Java) the modulo operator is defined so that the modulus has the same sign as the first operand. This means that the following equation holds:
(-a) % n = -(a % n)
For example, -8%3 would be -2, since 8%3 is 2.
Others, such as Python, compute a % n instead as the positive remainder when diving by n, which means
(-a) % n = n - (a % n)
For example, -8%3 is 1 because 3-(8%3) is 3-2 is 1.
Note that in modular arithmetic adding or subtracting any multiple of n does not change the result because "equality" (or congruence if you prefer that term) is defined with respect to divisibility: X is equal to 0 if it is a multiple of n, and A is equal to B if A-B is a multiple of n. For example -2 is equal to 1 modulo 3 because -2-1 = -3 is divisible by 3.
I'm working on coding the Pohlig-Hellman Algorithm but I am having problem understand the steps in the algorithm based on the definition of the algorithm.
Going by the Wiki of the algorithm:
I know the first part 1) is to calculate the prime factor of p-1 - which is fine.
However, I am not sure what I need to do in steps 2) where you calculate the co-efficents:
Let x2 = c0 + c1(2).
125(180/2) = 12590 1 mod (181) so c0 = 0.
125(180/4) = 12545 1 mod (181) so c1 = 0.
Thus, x2 = 0 + 0 = 0.
and 3) put the coefficents together and solve in the chinese remainder theorem.
Can someone help with explaining this in plain english (i) - or pseudocode. I want to code the solution myself obviously but I cannot make any more progress unless i understand the algorithm.
Note: I have done a lot of searching for this and I read S. Pohlig and M. Hellman (1978). "An Improved Algorithm for Computing Logarithms over GF(p) and its Cryptographic Significance but its still not really making sense to me.
Thanks in advance
Update:
how come q(125) stays constant in this example.
Where as in this example is appears like he is calculating a new q each time.
To be more specific I don't understand how the following is computed:
Now divide 7531 by a^c0 to get
7531(a^-2) = 6735 mod p.
Let's start with the main idea behind Pohlig-Hellman. Assume that we are given y, g and p and that we want to find x, such that
y == gx (mod p).
(I'm using == to denote an equivalence relation). To simplify things, I'm also assuming that the order of g is p-1, i.e. the smallest positive k with 1==gk (mod p) is k=p-1.
An inefficient method to find x, would be to simply try all values in the range 1 .. p-1.
Somewhat better is the "Baby-step giant-step" method that requires O(p0.5) arithmetic operations. Both methods are quite slow for large p. Pohlig-Hellman is a significant improvement when p-1 has many factors. I.e. assume that
p-1 = n r
Then what Pohlig and Hellman propose is to solve the equation
yn == (gn)z
(mod p).
If we take logarithms to the basis g on both sides, this is the same as
n logg(y) == logg(yn) == nz (mod p-1).
n can be divided out, giving
logg(y) == z (mod r).
Hence x == z (mod r).
This is an improvement, since we only have to search a range 0 .. r-1 for a solution of z. And again "Baby-step giant-step" can be used to improve the search for z. Obviously, doing this once is not a complete solution yet. I.e. one has to repeat the algorithm above for every prime factor r of p-1 and then to use the Chinese remainder theorem to find x from the partial solutions. This works nicely if p-1 is square free.
If p-1 is divisible by a prime power then a similiar idea can be used. For example let's assume that p-1 = m qk.
In the first step, we compute z such that x == z (mod q) as shown above. Next we want to extend this to a solution x == z' (mod q2). E.g. if p-1 = m q2 then this means that we have to find z' such that
ym == (gm)z' (mod p).
Since we already know that z' == z (mod q), z' must be in the set {z, z+q, z+2q, ..., z+(q-1)q }. Again we could either do an exhaustive search for z' or improve the search with "baby-step giant-step". This step is repeated for every exponent of q, this is from knowing x mod qi we iteratively derive x mod qi+1.
I'm coding it up myself right now (JAVA). I'm using Pollard-Rho to find the small prime factors of p-1. Then using Pohlig-Hellman to solve a DSA private key. y = g^x. I am having the same problem..
UPDATE: "To be more specific I don't understand how the following is computed: Now divide 7531 by a^c0 to get 7531(a^-2) = 6735 mod p."
if you find the modInverse of a^c0 it will make sense
Regards
For binary search tree type of data structures, I see the Big O notation is typically noted as O(logn). With a lowercase 'l' in log, does this imply log base e (n) as described by the natural logarithm? Sorry for the simple question but I've always had trouble distinguishing between the different implied logarithms.
Once expressed in big-O() notation, both are correct. However, during the derivation of the O() polynomial, in the case of binary search, only log2 is correct. I assume this distinction was the intuitive inspiration for your question to begin with.
Also, as a matter of my opinion, writing O(log2 N) is better for your example, because it better communicates the derivation of the algorithm's run-time.
In big-O() notation, constant factors are removed. Converting from one logarithm base to another involves multiplying by a constant factor.
So O(log N) is equivalent to O(log2 N) due to a constant factor.
However, if you can easily typeset log2 N in your answer, doing so is more pedagogical. In the case of binary tree searching, you are correct that log2 N is introduced during the derivation of the big-O() runtime.
Before expressing the result as big-O() notation, the difference is very important. When deriving the polynomial to be communicated via big-O notation, it would be incorrect for this example to use a logarithm other than log2 N, prior to applying the O()-notation. As soon as the polynomial is used to communicate a worst-case runtime via big-O() notation, it doesn't matter what logarithm is used.
Big O notation is not affected by logarithmic base, because all logarithms in different bases are related by a constant factor, O(ln n) is equivalent to O(log n).
Both are correct. Think about this
log2(n)=log(n)/log(2)=O(log(n))
log10(n)=log(n)/log(10)=O(log(n))
logE(n)=log(n)/log(E)=O(log(n))
It doesn't really matter what base it is, since big-O notation is usually written showing only the asymptotically highest order of n, so constant coefficients will drop away. Since a different logarithm base is equivalent to a constant coefficient, it is superfluous.
That said, I would probably assume log base 2.
Yes, when talking about big-O notation, the base does not matter. However, computationally when faced with a real search problem it does matter.
When developing an intuition about tree structures, it's helpful to understand that a binary search tree can be searched in O(n log n) time because that is the height of the tree - that is, in a binary tree with n nodes, the tree depth is O(n log n) (base 2). If each node has three children, the tree can still be searched in O(n log n) time, but with a base 3 logarithm. Computationally, the number of children each node has can have a big impact on performance (see for example: link text)
Enjoy!
Paul
First you must understand what it means for a function f(n) to be O( g(n) ).
The formal definition is: *A function f(n) is said to be O(g(n)) iff |f(n)| <= C * |g(n)| whenever n > k, where C and k are constants.*
so let f(n) = log base a of n, where a > 1 and g(n) = log base b of n, where b > 1
NOTE: This means the values a and b could be any value greater than 1, for example a=100 and b = 3
Now we get the following: log base a of n is said to be O(log base b of n) iff |log base a of n| <= C * |log base b of n| whenever n > k
Choose k=0, and C= log base a of b.
Now our equation looks like the following: |log base a of n| <= log base a of b * |log base b of n| whenever n > 0
Notice the right hand side, we can manipulate the equation: = log base a of b * |log base b of n| = |log base b of n| * log base a of b = |log base a of b^(log base b of n)| = |log base a of n|
Now our equation looks like the following: |log base a of n| <= |log base a of n| whenever n > 0
The equation is always true no matter what the values n,b, or a are, other than their restrictions a,b>1 and n>0.
So log base a of n is O(log base b of n) and since a,b doesn't matter we can simply omit them.
You can see a YouTube video on it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY-VCrQCaVw
You can read an article on it here: https://medium.com/#randerson112358/omitting-bases-in-logs-in-big-o-a619a46740ca
Technically the base doesn't matter, but you can generally think of it as base-2.