Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.security.misc > #1138
| From | William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.security.misc |
| Subject | Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly |
| Date | 2015-09-04 18:32 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <msco3q$nsm$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <20150901111251.317@kylheku.com> <ms6djn$674$2@news.albasani.net> <ms77r9$b3g$2@dont-email.me> <ms8ggc$205$1@news.albasani.net> <msch6l$pj1$1@news.albasani.net> |
On 2015-09-04, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> wrote: > Am 03.09.2015 um 05:58 schrieb Mok-Kong Shen: > [snip] >> I have in comment lines in my code already indicated how one could use >> Python's random.SystemRandom() instead of the normal random module. >> I am now preparing an update that actually uses random.SystemRandom(). > > The update, PROVABLEPRIME Version 1.2, has just been released. The advantages of a provable prime are overhyped. The probability of not finding a prime if you use a probablistic approach are extremely small, and algorithm for proving primality AFAIK is very slow. Already generating primes is slow enough that people do not want to do it. And, AFAIK if you use a non-prime in RSA you will not get the right answers when you try to decrypt. So you will soon discover that you do not have a real prime. Ie, speed is probably more important that provability in this case. So what is the speed of your implimentation vs the speed of probabilistic approaches?
Back to comp.security.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-01 13:09 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-01 14:23 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-01 20:00 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-09-01 18:43 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 10:56 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-09-02 16:24 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-03 05:58 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-04 18:34 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-09-04 18:32 +0000
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-05 20:50 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-28 11:30 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-10-08 18:28 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-01 13:23 -0700
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen@t-online.de> - 2015-09-02 11:04 +0200
Re: Researches in quantum computing seem to progress only extremely slowly Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-02 02:22 -0500
csiph-web