MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4256494733 · doi:10.2307/3219180

A Brief History of Factoring and Primality Testing B. C. (Before Computers)

2002· article· en· W4256494733 on OpenAlexaff
Richard A. Mollin

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics Magazine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimality testFactoringMathematicsArithmeticDiscrete mathematicsMathematics educationPrime (order theory)Combinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factoring and primality testing have become increasingly important in today's information based society, since they both have produced techniques used in the secure transmission of data. However, often lost in the modern-day shuffle of information are the contributions of the pioneers whose ideas ushered in the computer age and, as we shall see, some of whose ideas are still used today as the underpinnings of powerful algorithms for factoring and primality testing. We offer this brief history to help readers know more about these contributions and appreciate their significance. Virtually everyone who has graduated from high school knows the definition of a number, namely a p E N = {1, 2, 3, 4, . . .} such that p > 1 and if p = Em where X, m E , then either f = 1 or m = 1. (If E N and > 1 is not prime, then is called composite.) Although we cannot be certain, the concept of primality probably arose with the ancient Greeks over two and one-half millennia ago. The first recorded definition of numbers was given by Euclid around 300 BCE in his Elements. However, there is some indirect evidence that the concept of primality might have been known far earlier, for instance, to Pythagoras and his followers. The Greeks of antiquity used the term arithmetic to mean what today we would call number theory, namely the study of the properties of the natural numbers and the relationships between them. The Greeks reserved the word logistics for the study of ordinary computations using the standard operations of addition/subtraction and multiplication/division, which we now call arithmetic. The Pythagoreans introduced the term mathematics, which to them meant the study of arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music. This curriculum became known as the quadrivium in the Middle Ages. Although we have enjoyed the notion of a for millennia, only very recently have we developed eJficient tests for primality. This seemingly trivial task is in fact much more difficult than it appears. A primality test is an algorithm (a methodology following a set of rules to achieve a goal), the steps of which verify that given some integer n, we may conclude n is a number. A primality proof is a successful application of a primality test. Such tests are typically called true primality tests to distinguish them from probabilistic primality tests (which can only conclude that n is prime up to a specified likelihood). We will not discuss such algorithms here (see [9] for these). A concept used frequently in primality testing is the notion of a sieve. A is a process to find numbers with particular characteristics (for instance primes) by searching among all integers up to a prescribed bound, and eliminating invalid candidates until only the desired numbers remain. Eratosthenes (ca. 284-204 scE) proposed the first sieve for finding primes. The following example illustrates the Sieve of Eratosthenes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.014

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMathematics Magazine→Same topicTeaching and Learning Programming→French-language works237,207→