In mathematics, the sieve of Pritchard is an algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to a specified bound. Like the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes, it has a simple conceptual basis in number theory. [1] It is especially suited to quick hand computation for small bounds.
Whereas the sieve of Eratosthenes marks off each non-prime for each of its prime factors, the sieve of Pritchard avoids considering almost all non-prime numbers by building progressively larger wheels, which represent the pattern of numbers not divisible by any of the primes processed thus far. It thereby achieves a better asymptotic complexity, and was the first sieve with a running time sublinear in the specified bound. Its asymptotic running-time has not been improved on, and it deletes fewer composites than any other known sieve. It was created in 1979 by Paul Pritchard. [2]
Since Pritchard has created a number of other sieve algorithms for finding prime numbers, [3] [4] [5] the sieve of Pritchard is sometimes singled out by being called the wheel sieve (by Pritchard himself [1] ) or the dynamic wheel sieve. [6]
A prime number is a natural number that has no natural number divisors other than the number and itself.
To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to a given integer , a sieve algorithm examines a set of candidates in the range , and eliminates those that are not prime, leaving the primes at the end. The sieve of Eratosthenes examines all of the range, first removing all multiples of the first prime , then of the next prime , and so on. The sieve of Pritchard instead examines a subset of the range consisting of numbers that occur on successive wheels, which represent the pattern of numbers left after each successive prime is processed by the sieve of Eratosthenes.
For the 'th wheel represents this pattern. It is the set of numbers between and the product of the first prime numbers that are not divisible by any of these prime numbers (and is said to have an associated length). This is because adding to a number doesn't change whether or not it is divisible by one of the first prime numbers, since the remainder on division by any one of these primes is unchanged.
So with length represents the pattern of odd numbers; with length represents the pattern of numbers not divisible by or ; etc. Wheels are so-called because can be usefully visualized as a circle of circumference with its members marked at their corresponding distances from an origin. Then rolling the wheel along the number line marks points corresponding to successive numbers not divisible by one of the first prime numbers. The animation shows being rolled up to 30.
It's useful to define for to be the result of rolling up to . Then the animation generates . Note that up to , this consists only of and the primes between and .
The sieve of Pritchard is derived from the observation [1] that this holds generally: for all , the values in are and the primes between and . It even holds for , where the wheel has length and contains just (representing all the natural numbers). So the sieve of Pritchard starts with the trivial wheel and builds successive wheels until the square of the wheel's first member after is at least . Wheels grow very quickly, but only their values up to are needed and generated.
It remains to find a method for generating the next wheel. Note in the animation that can be obtained by rolling up to and then removing times each member of . This also holds generally: for all , . [1] Rolling past just adds values to , so the current wheel is first extended by getting each successive member starting with , adding to it, and inserting the result in the set. Then the multiples of are deleted. Care must be taken to avoid a number being deleted that itself needs to be multiplied by . The sieve of Pritchard as originally presented [2] does so by first skipping past successive members until finding the maximum one needed, and then doing the deletions in reverse order by working back through the set. This is the method used in the first animation above. A simpler approach is just to gather the multiples of in a list, and then delete them. [7] Another approach is given by Gries and Misra. [8]
If the main loop terminates with a wheel whose length is less than , it is extended up to to generate the remaining primes.
The algorithm, for finding all primes up to N, is therefore as follows:
To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to 150, proceed as follows.
Start with wheel 0 with length 1, representing all natural numbers 1, 2, 3...:
1
The first number after 1 for wheel 0 (when rolled) is 2; note it as a prime. Now form wheel 1 with length 2x1=2 by first extending wheel 0 up to 2 and then deleting 2 times each number in wheel 0, to get:
12
The first number after 1 for wheel 1 (when rolled) is 3; note it as a prime. Now form wheel 2 with length 3x2=6 by first extending wheel 1 up to 6 and then deleting 3 times each number in wheel 1, to get
1235
The first number after 1 for wheel 2 is 5; note it as a prime. Now form wheel 3 with length 5x6=30 by first extending wheel 2 up to 30 and then deleting 5 times each number in wheel 2 (in reverse order!), to get
12357 11 13 17 19 232529
The first number after 1 for wheel 3 is 7; note it as a prime. Now wheel 4 has length 7x30=210, so we only extend wheel 3 up to our limit 150. (No further extending will be done now that the limit has been reached.) We then delete 7 times each number in wheel 3 until we exceed our limit 150, to get the elements in wheel 4 up to 150:
1235711 13 17 19 232529 31 37 41 43 474953 59 61 67 71 737779 83 899197 101 103 107 109 113119121 127 131133137 139 143 149
The first number after 1 for this partial wheel 4 is 11; note it as a prime. Since we've finished with rolling, we delete 11 times each number in the partial wheel 4 until we exceed our limit 150, to get the elements in wheel 5 up to 150:
123571113 17 19 232529 31 37 41 43 474953 59 61 67 71 737779 83 899197 101 103 107 109 113119121127 131133137 139143149
The first number after 1 for this partial wheel 5 is 13. Since 13 squared is at least our limit 150, we stop. The remaining numbers (other than 1) are the rest of the primes up to our limit 150.
Just 8 composite numbers are removed, once each. The rest of the numbers considered (other than 1) are prime. In comparison, the natural version of Eratosthenes sieve (stopping at the same point) removes composite numbers 184 times.
The sieve of Pritchard can be expressed in pseudocode, as follows: [1]
algorithm Sieve of Pritchard isinput: an integer N >= 2. output: the set of prime numbers in {1,2,...,N}. letW and Pr be sets of integer values, and all other variables integer values. k, W, length, p, Pr := 1, {1}, 2, 3, {2}; {invariant: p = pk+1 and W = Wk {1,2,...,N} and length = minimum of Pk,N and Pr = the primes up to pk} whilep2 <= Ndoif (length < N) then Extend W,length to minimum of p*length,N; Delete multiples of p from W; Insert p into Pr; k, p := k+1, next(W, 1) if (length < N) then Extend W,length to N; returnPrW - {1};
where next(W, w) is the next value in the ordered set W after w.
procedure Extend W,length to nis {in:W = Wk and length = Pk and n > length} {out:W = Wkn and length = n} integer w, x; w, x := 1, length+1; whilex <= ndo Insert x into W; w := next(W,w); x := length + w; length := n;
procedure Delete multiples of p from W,lengthis integer w; w := p; whilep*w <= lengthdow := next(W,w); whilew > 1 dow := prev(W,w); Remove p*w from W;
where prev(W, w) is the previous value in the ordered set W before w. The algorithm can be initialized with instead of at the minor complicaion of making next(W,1) a special case when k = 0.
This abstract algorithm uses ordered sets supporting the operations of insertion of a value greater than the maximum, deletion of a member, getting the next value after a member, and getting the previous value before a member. Using one of Mertens' theorems (the third) it can be shown to use of these operations and additions and multiplications. [2]
An array-based doubly-linked list s can be used to implement the ordered set W, with s[w] storing next(W,w) and s[w-1] storing prev(W,w). This permits each abstract operation to be implemented in a small number of operations. (The array can also be used to store the set Pr "for free".) Therefore the time complexity of the sieve of Pritchard to calculate the primes up to in the random access machine model is operations on words of size . Pritchard also shows how multiplications can be eliminated by using very small multiplication tables, [2] so the bit complexity is bit operations.
In the same model, the space complexity is words, i.e., bits. The sieve of Eratosthenes requires only 1 bit for each candidate in the range 2 through , so its space complexity is lower at bits. Note that space needed for the primes is not counted, since they can printed or written to external storage as they are found. Pritchard [2] presented a variant of his sieve that requires only bits without compromising the sublinear time complexity, making it asymptotically superior to the natural version of the sieve of Eratostheses in both time and space.
However, the sieve of Eratostheses can be optimized to require much less memory by operating on successive segments of the natural numbers. [9] Its space complexity can be reduced to bits without increasing its time complexity [3] This means that in practice it can be used for much larger limits than would otherwise fit in memory, and also take advantage of fast cache memory. For maximum speed it is also optimized using a small wheel to avoid sieving with the first few primes (although this does not change its asymptotic time complexity). Therefore the sieve of Pritchard is not competitive as a practical sieve over sufficiently large ranges.
At the heart of the sieve of Pritchard is an algorithm for building successive wheels. It has a simple geometric model as follows:
Note that for the first 2 iterations it is necessary to continue round the circle until 1 is reached again.
The first circle represents , and successive circles represent wheels . The animation on the right shows this model in action up to .
It is apparent from the model that wheels are symmetric. This is because is not divisible by one of the first primes if and only if is not so divisible. It is possible to exploit this to avoid processing some composites, but at the cost of a more complex algorithm.
Once the wheel in the sieve of Pritchard reaches its maximum size, the remaining operations are equivalent to those performed by Euler's sieve.
The sieve of Pritchard is unique in conflating the set of prime candidates with a dynamic wheel used to speed up the sifting process. But a separate static wheel (as frequently used to speed up the sieve of Eratosthenes) can give an speedup to the latter, or to linear sieves, provided it is large enough (as a function of ). Examples are the use of the largest wheel of length not exceeding to get a version of the sieve of Eratosthenes that takes additions and requires only bits, [3] and the speedup of the naturally linear sieve of Atkin to get a sublinear optimized version.
Bengalloun found a linear smoothly incremental sieve, [10] i.e., one that (in theory) can run indefinitely and takes a bounded number of operations to increment the current bound . He also showed how to make it sublinear by adapting the sieve of Pritchard to incrementally build the next dynamic wheel while the current one is being used. Pritchard [5] showed how to avoid multiplications, thereby obtaining the same asymptotic bit-complexity as the sieve of Pritchard.
Runciman provides a functional algorithm [11] inspired by the sieve of Pritchard.
In mathematics, the factorial of a non-negative integer , denoted by , is the product of all positive integers less than or equal to . The factorial of also equals the product of with the next smaller factorial:
In number theory, integer factorization is the decomposition of a positive integer into a product of integers. Every positive integer greater than 1 is either the product of two or more integer factors, in which case it is called a composite number, or it is not, in which case it is called a prime number. For example, 15 is a composite number because 15 = 3 · 5, but 7 is a prime number because it cannot be decomposed in this way. If one of the factors is composite, it can in turn be written as a product of smaller factors, for example 60 = 3 · 20 = 3 · (5 · 4). Continuing this process until every factor is prime is called prime factorization; the result is always unique up to the order of the factors by the prime factorization theorem.
A prime number is a natural number greater than 1 that is not a product of two smaller natural numbers. A natural number greater than 1 that is not prime is called a composite number. For example, 5 is prime because the only ways of writing it as a product, 1 × 5 or 5 × 1, involve 5 itself. However, 4 is composite because it is a product (2 × 2) in which both numbers are smaller than 4. Primes are central in number theory because of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic: every natural number greater than 1 is either a prime itself or can be factorized as a product of primes that is unique up to their order.
In mathematics, the sieve of Eratosthenes is an ancient algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to any given limit.
In number theory, the general number field sieve (GNFS) is the most efficient classical algorithm known for factoring integers larger than 10100. Heuristically, its complexity for factoring an integer n (consisting of ⌊log2n⌋ + 1 bits) is of the form
A primality test is an algorithm for determining whether an input number is prime. Among other fields of mathematics, it is used for cryptography. Unlike integer factorization, primality tests do not generally give prime factors, only stating whether the input number is prime or not. Factorization is thought to be a computationally difficult problem, whereas primality testing is comparatively easy. Some primality tests prove that a number is prime, while others like Miller–Rabin prove that a number is composite. Therefore, the latter might more accurately be called compositeness tests instead of primality tests.
The AKS primality test is a deterministic primality-proving algorithm created and published by Manindra Agrawal, Neeraj Kayal, and Nitin Saxena, computer scientists at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, on August 6, 2002, in an article titled "PRIMES is in P". The algorithm was the first one which is able to determine in polynomial time, whether a given number is prime or composite and this without relying on mathematical conjectures such as the generalized Riemann hypothesis. The proof is also notable for not relying on the field of analysis. In 2006 the authors received both the Gödel Prize and Fulkerson Prize for their work.
In theoretical computer science, the time complexity is the computational complexity that describes the amount of computer time it takes to run an algorithm. Time complexity is commonly estimated by counting the number of elementary operations performed by the algorithm, supposing that each elementary operation takes a fixed amount of time to perform. Thus, the amount of time taken and the number of elementary operations performed by the algorithm are taken to be related by a constant factor.
In computational complexity theory, a complexity class is a set of computational problems "of related resource-based complexity". The two most commonly analyzed resources are time and memory.
Trial division is the most laborious but easiest to understand of the integer factorization algorithms. The essential idea behind trial division tests to see if an integer n, the integer to be factored, can be divided by each number in turn that is less than the square root of n. For example, for the integer n = 12, the only numbers that divide it are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12. Selecting only the largest powers of primes in this list gives that 12 = 3 × 4 = 3 × 22.
The quadratic sieve algorithm (QS) is an integer factorization algorithm and, in practice, the second-fastest method known. It is still the fastest for integers under 100 decimal digits or so, and is considerably simpler than the number field sieve. It is a general-purpose factorization algorithm, meaning that its running time depends solely on the size of the integer to be factored, and not on special structure or properties. It was invented by Carl Pomerance in 1981 as an improvement to Schroeppel's linear sieve.
In number theory, a branch of mathematics, the special number field sieve (SNFS) is a special-purpose integer factorization algorithm. The general number field sieve (GNFS) was derived from it.
In number theory, an n-smooth (or n-friable) number is an integer whose prime factors are all less than or equal to n. For example, a 7-smooth number is a number whose every prime factor is at most 7, so 49 = 72 and 15750 = 2 × 32 × 53 × 7 are both 7-smooth, while 11 and 702 = 2 × 33 × 13 are not 7-smooth. The term seems to have been coined by Leonard Adleman. Smooth numbers are especially important in cryptography, which relies on factorization of integers. The 2-smooth numbers are just the powers of 2, while 5-smooth numbers are known as regular numbers.
In mathematics, the sieve of Atkin is a modern algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to a specified integer. Compared with the ancient sieve of Eratosthenes, which marks off multiples of primes, the sieve of Atkin does some preliminary work and then marks off multiples of squares of primes, thus achieving a better theoretical asymptotic complexity. It was created in 2003 by A. O. L. Atkin and Daniel J. Bernstein.
In computational number theory, a variety of algorithms make it possible to generate prime numbers efficiently. These are used in various applications, for example hashing, public-key cryptography, and search of prime factors in large numbers.
In mathematics, the rational sieve is a general algorithm for factoring integers into prime factors. It is a special case of the general number field sieve. While it is less efficient than the general algorithm, it is conceptually simpler. It serves as a helpful first step in understanding how the general number field sieve works.
In computational complexity theory, a numeric algorithm runs in pseudo-polynomial time if its running time is a polynomial in the numeric value of the input —but not necessarily in the length of the input, which is the case for polynomial time algorithms.
Wheel factorization is a method for generating a sequence of natural numbers by repeated additions, as determined by a number of the first few primes, so that the generated numbers are coprime with these primes, by construction.
In mathematics, the sieve of Sundaram is a variant of the sieve of Eratosthenes, a simple deterministic algorithm for finding all the prime numbers up to a specified integer. It was discovered by Indian student S. P. Sundaram in 1934.
In mathematics the Function Field Sieve is one of the most efficient algorithms to solve the Discrete Logarithm Problem (DLP) in a finite field. It has heuristic subexponential complexity. Leonard Adleman developed it in 1994 and then elaborated it together with M. D. Huang in 1999. Previous work includes the work of D. Coppersmith about the DLP in fields of characteristic two.