Issue #6362 has been reported by MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet). ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Open Priority: Normal Assignee: Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2012-04-26 02:52
on 2012-04-26 20:06
Issue #6362 has been updated by sdaubert (Sylvain Daubert). +1 : very helpful for cryptographic stuffs. ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-26224 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Open Priority: Normal Assignee: Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2012-04-26 20:11
Issue #6362 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Status changed from Open to Feedback Assignee set to MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Personally I like this proposal, but it seems to require: - use cases (Well, personally I often use them for Project Euler :-) - candidates of method name (pow_mod / inv_mod?) - a detailed spec (especially corner cases, e.g., not coprime case, negative modulo, etc.) - a patch - other kinds of modular arithmetic are not needed? (add_mod, mul_mod, sqrt_mod, ...) -- Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp> ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-26225 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Feedback Priority: Normal Assignee: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2012-04-28 02:32
Issue #6362 has been updated by MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet). mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote: > Personally I like this proposal, but it seems to require: > > - use cases (Well, personally I often use them for Project Euler :-) It would be incredibly helpful when implementing cryptographic primitives. Apart from mathematics in general (and Project Euler in particular!) I have little experience with other areas where it would be equally useful. One could argue this should be in a gem, but since we already have excellent Bignum support, I'd enjoy to see it even more excellent :) > - candidates of method name (pow_mod / inv_mod?) Yes, I thought of them as well. If there would be no complaints... > - other kinds of modular arithmetic are not needed? (add_mod, mul_mod, sqrt_mod, ...) Seems the right thing to do. GCD, modular shifts, etc. as well. I'll explore what others like GMP or OpenSSL support and start from there. > - a detailed spec (especially corner cases, e.g., not coprime case, negative modulo, etc.) Based on what I find out, I'll try to design an interface plus specs. Another question is what particular algorithms to use for implementing each aspect. I'm currently catching up on literature, although I'd be happy about suggestions, of course! > - a patch Will do once there is a consensus on the specs! -Martin ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-26273 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Feedback Priority: Normal Assignee: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2012-04-28 15:20
Issue #6362 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). =begin What about a new class, say Modulo? m = Modulo.new(101, 11) m.to_i #=> 2 m**4 #=> 5 =end ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-26293 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Feedback Priority: Normal Assignee: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2012-05-03 05:03
Issue #6362 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). Status changed from Feedback to Assigned Assignee changed from MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) Martin, thanks. Assigning it to matz. nobu wrote: > What about a new class, say Modulo? I guess, it would be slow, and therefore defeat the purpose. But indeed it looks like the Ruby way. Anyway, it mgiht be a good idea to start it with gem. -- Yusuke Endoh <mame@tsg.ne.jp> ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-26404 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Assigned Priority: Normal Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2012-05-05 03:36
Issue #6362 has been updated by MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet). mame (Yusuke Endoh) wrote: > Martin, thanks. Assigning it to matz. Sure, you're welcome :) > nobu wrote: > > What about a new class, say Modulo? Sounds really nice and it would extend better to arithmetic in finite fields defined over irreducible polynomials or to elliptic curves. This is where the initial proposal would fall short eventually. > I guess, it would be slow, and therefore defeat the purpose. > But indeed it looks like the Ruby way. Just for my understanding, why do you think it would be slow? If it were written in C with access to Bignum internal representation, would it still be slow? > Anyway, it mgiht be a good idea to start it with gem. > So there's no need for a spec right now, or would you still be interested? -Martin ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-26471 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Assigned Priority: Normal Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) Category: core Target version: I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
on 2013-02-04 20:29
Issue #6362 has been updated by spastorino (Santiago Pastorino). This would be a great thing to have +1000 ---------------------------------------- Feature #6362: Modular exponentiation/inverse https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/6362#change-35830 Author: MartinBosslet (Martin Bosslet) Status: Assigned Priority: Normal Assignee: matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto) Category: core Target version: next minor I'd like to ask your opinion about adding two methods for modular exponentiation/modular inverse to integer classes. Is this functionality too specific or would this be a welcome addition?
Enable email notification
Enable multi-page viewPlease log in before posting. Registration is free and takes only a minute.
Existing account
(Switch to SSL-encrypted connection)
NEW: Do you have a Google/GoogleMail or Yahoo account? No registration required!
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account
Log in with Google account | Log in with Yahoo account
No account? Register here.