# The Recognition of Primes

## Abstract

One very important concern in number theory is to establish whether a given number *N* is prime or composite. At first sight it might seem that in order to decide the question an attempt must be made to factorize *N* and if it fails, then *N* is a prime. Fortunately there exist primality tests which do not rely upon factorization. This is very lucky indeed, since all factorization methods developed so far are rather laborious. Such an approach would admit only numbers of moderate size to be examined and the situation for deciding on primality would be rather bad. It is interesting to note that methods to determine primality, other than attempting to factorize, do not give any indication of the factors of *N* in the case where *N* turns out to be composite.—Since the prime 2 possesses certain particular properties, we shall, in this and the next chapter, assume for most of the time that *N* is an *odd* integer.

## Keywords

Elliptic Curve Primitive Root Fermat Number Composite Number Compositeness Test## Bibliography

- 1.D. H. Lehmer, “On the Converse of Fermat’s Theorem,”
*Am. Math. Monthly***43**(1936) pp. 347–354.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.D. H. Lehmer, “On the Converse of Fermat’s Theorem II,”
*Am. Math. Monthly***56**(1949) pp. 300–309.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.Carl Pomerance, John L. Selfridge and Samuel S. Wagstaff, Jr., “The Pseudoprimes to 25 ∙ 10
^{9},”*Math. Comp.***35**(1980) pp. 1003–1026.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 4.Su Hee Kim and Carl Pomerance, “The Probability That a Random Probable Prime is Composite,”
*Math. Comp.***53**(1989) pp. 721–741.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.Oystein Ore,
*Number Theory and Its History*, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1948, pp. 331–339.MATHGoogle Scholar - 6.Gerhard Jaeschke, “The Carmichael Numbers to 10
^{12},”*Math. Comp.***55**(1990) pp. 383– 389.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 7.R. G. E. Pinch, “The Carmichael Numbers up to 10
^{15},”*Math. Comp.***61**(1993) pp. 381–391.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 7′.R. G. E. Pinch, “The Carmichael Numbers up to 10
^{16},” preprint (1993).Google Scholar - 8.Gerhard Jaeschke, “On Strong Pseudoprimes to Several Bases,”
*Math. Comp.***61**(1993) pp. 915–926.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.Gary Miller, “Riemann’s Hypothesis and Tests for Primality,”
*Journ. of Comp. and Syst. Sc.***13**(1976) pp. 300–317.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.Carl Pomerance, “On the Distribution of Pseudoprimes,”
*Math. Comp.***37**(1981) pp. 587–593.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.W. R. Alford, A. Granville, and C. Pomerance, “There are Infinitely Many Carmichael Numbers,”
*Ann. Math.*(to appear).Google Scholar - 12.R. G. E. Pinch, “Some Primality Testing Algorithms,”
*Notices Am. Math. Soc.***40**(1993) pp. 1203–1210.Google Scholar - 13.John Brillhart, D. H. Lehmer and John Selfridge, “New Primality Criteria and Factor izations of 2
^{m}± 1,”*Math. Comp.***29**(1975) pp. 620–647.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 14.Hiromi Suyama. “The Cofactor of
*F*_{15}is Composite,”*Abstracts Am. Math. Soc.***5**(1984) pp. 271–272.Google Scholar - 15.Anders Björn and Hans Riesel, “Factors of Generalized Fermat Numbers,”
*AMS Proc. Symp. Appl Math.*(to appear).Google Scholar - 16.
- 17.Carl Pomerance, “Very Short Primality Proofs,”
*Math. Comp.***48**(1987) pp. 315–322.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.H. C. Williams and J. S. Judd, “Some Algorithms for Prime Testing Using Generalized Lehmer Functions,”
*Math Comp.***30**(1976) pp. 867–886.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 19.Hans Riesel, “Lucasian Criteria for the Primality of
*N*=*h*∙ 2^{n}− 1,”*Math. Comp.***23**(1969) pp. 869–875.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 20.Wieb Bosma, “Explicit Primality Criteria for
*h*∙ 2^{k}± 1,”*Math. Comp.***61**(1993) pp. 97–109.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 21.H. C. Williams, “Effective Primality Tests for Some Integers of the Forms
*A*5^{n}− 1 and*A*7^{n}− 1,”*Math. Comp.***48**(1987) pp. 385–403.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 22.K. Inkeri and J. Sirkesalo, “Factorization of Certain Numbers of the Form
*h*∙ 2^{n}+*k*,”*Ann. Univ. Turkuensis, Series A***No. 38**(1959).Google Scholar - 23.
- 24.William Adams and Daniel Shanks, “Strong Primality Tests That Are Not Sufficient,”
*Math. Comp.***39**(1982) pp. 255–300.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.Leonard Adleman and Frank T. Leighton, “An
*O*(*n*^{1/10.89}) Primality Testing Algorithm,”*Math. Comp.***36**(1981) pp. 261–266.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 26.Carl Pomerance, “Recent Developments in Primality Testing,”
*The Mathematical In telligencer***3**(1981) pp. 97–105.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.Carl Pomerance, “The Search for Prime Numbers,”
*Sc. Amer.***247**(Dec. 1982) pp. 122– 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.Leonard M. Adleman, Carl Pomerance and Robert S. Rumely, “On Distinguishing Prime Numbers from Composite Numbers,”
*Ann. of Math.***117**(1983) pp. 173–206.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.H. W Lenstra, Jr., “Primality Testing Algorithms,”
*Séminaire Bourbaki***33**(1980–81) No. 576, pp. 243–257.Google Scholar - 30.H. Cohen and H. W. Lenstra, Jr., “Primality Testing and Jacobi Sums,”
*Math. Comp.***42**(1984) pp. 297–330.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.H. Cohen and A.K. Lenstra, “Implementation of a New Primality Test,”
*Math. Comp.***48**(1987) pp. 103–121.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.John D. Dixon, “Factorization and Primality Tests,”
*Am. Math. Monthly***91**(1984) pp. 333–352. Contains a large bibliography.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.A. O. L. Atkin and F. Morain, “Elliptic Curves and Primality Proving,”
*Math. Comp.***61**(1993) pp. 29–68.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.Henri Cohen,
*A Course in Computational Algebraic Number Theory*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar - 35.S. Goldwasser and S. Kilian, “Almost All Primes Can be Quickly Certified,”
*Proc. 18th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing*(1986) pp. 316–329.Google Scholar - 36.R. Schoof, “Elliptic Curves over Finite Fields and the Computation of Square Roots mod
*p*,”*Math. Comp.***44**(1985) pp. 483–494.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar