## Factoring By Digital Coding

### April 1, 2014

A few days ago, an announcement was made in /r/crypto of a new factoring algorithm that runs in time O(log^4 *n*). A paper describes the algorithm. And even better, coding for the new algorithm is simple:

1)Set

m←n.

2) Expressmas a list of its decimal digits.

3) Express each decimal digit as a list of binary bits.

4) Append the individual lists of binary bits.

5) Convert the resulting list of binary bits into a decimal number. Call itd.

6) If the greatest common divisor ofnanddis between 1 andn, it is a factor ofn. Report the factor and halt.

7) Setm←dand go to Step 1.

Steps 1 through 4 form the *digital code* of a number. For example, 88837 forms the bit-list 1 0 0 0, 1 0 0 0, 1 0 0 0, 1 1, 1 1 1, where we used commas to delineate the decimal digits. That bit-list is 69919 in decimal, which is the digital code of 88837. To find a factor of 88837, compute successive digital codes until a gcd is greater than 1; the chain runs 88837, 69919, 54073, 2847, 2599, 5529, 2921, 333, at which point gcd(88837, 333) = 37 and we have found a factor: 88837 = 7^{4} × 37. Factoring 96577 is even faster: the digital code of 96577 is 40319, and gcd(96577, 40319) = 23, which is a factor of 96577 = 13 × 17 × 19 × 23. But trying to factor 65059 = 17 × 43 × 89 causes an infinite loop. The paper gives a heuristic solution to that problem, but we’ll stop there and accept that sometimes a factorization fails.

Your task is to write a function that factors by digital coding. When you are finished, you are welcome to read or run a suggested solution, or to post your own solution or discuss the exercise in the comments below.

Pages: 1 2

I use the cycle-finding method from Pollard’s Rho algorithm to check whether we’re stuck in a loop.

While fast, this has a disturbingly high failure rate: 338,793 out of the first million natural numbers fail to produce a factor by this method.

I suppose it might be useful as a prefilter when attempting to factor large numbers with no small factors — it’s a computationally cheap procedure, so it wouldn’t introduce much overhead and has a chance of dramatically speeding up the task by skipping the heavy artillery such as the ECM or MPQS if it succeeds.

@Lucas: Did you see the last paragraph on the second page of the exercise?

The following is my Mathematica code:

1. Firstly define a function that create the digital code of a specific number:

2. Then a function that computes successive digital codes until a gcd is greater than 1 is defined as follows:

3. Finally, define a function that returns the expected results:

In Mathematica, we get: