## Feature #16468

closed### Switch to Miller-Rabin for Prime.prime?

**Description**

The miller-rabin algorithm is a non-deterministic primality test, however it is known that below 2**64, you can always get a deterministic answer by only checking a=[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23, 29, 31, 37]

Given that Prime.prime? would never respond in a reasonable amount of time for larger numbers, we can gain much more utility and performance by switching..

```
user system total real
miller_rabin: random set 0.150000 0.000000 0.150000 ( 0.152212)
Prime.prime?: random set 0.270000 0.000000 0.270000 ( 0.281257)
user system total real
miller_rabin: 16 digits 0.010000 0.000000 0.010000 ( 0.000300)
Prime.prime? 16 digits 2.200000 0.020000 2.220000 ( 2.368247)
user system total real
miller_rabin: 2-10000 0.030000 0.000000 0.030000 ( 0.035752)
Prime.prime? 2-10000 0.020000 0.000000 0.020000 ( 0.022948)
```

**Files**

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) almost 5 years ago

**Description**updated (diff)

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) almost 5 years ago

**File***patch.diff*added

Attached is an implementation against master....

#### Updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) almost 5 years ago

Interesting. We might as well always return the correct result, i.e. apply the fast algorithm for integers < 318,665,857,834,031,151,167,461 and the slow algorithm for larger ones. Would you care to modify your patch?

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) almost 5 years ago

marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) wrote:

Interesting. We might as well always return the correct result, i.e. apply the fast algorithm for integers < 318,665,857,834,031,151,167,461 and the slow algorithm for larger ones. Would you care to modify your patch?

If you were to use the existing algorithm on 318,665,857,834,031,151,167,461 you'd need Math.sqrt(318665857834031151167461 ) / 30.0 = 18_816_832_235 loop iterations.. Its not worth falling back given how inefficient the existing function is at that magnitude.

#### Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) almost 5 years ago

It can fall back to APR-CL primality test when Miller-Rabin does not work. In my personal opinion, it would be best to keep prime.rb simple because it is a hobby library.

You may be interested in my gem: https://github.com/mame/faster_prime

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) almost 5 years ago

On second thought, I think Marc is right, we can't ruin someones day with a composite without a warning that theres a non-zero probability of it being incorrect so I will update......

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File***patch_with_argument_error.diff*added

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File**deleted ()*patch.diff*

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File***patch_with_argument_error.diff*added

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File**deleted ()*patch_with_argument_error.diff*

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File***patch_with_argument_error_and_tests.diff*added

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File**deleted ()*patch_with_argument_error.diff*

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File**deleted ()*patch_with_argument_error_and_tests.diff*

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File***patch_with_argument_error_and_tests.diff*added

- Add bounds check
- Add test

#### Updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) over 4 years ago

I think it would be interesting to expose the algorithm for larger numbers. So you could have `miller_rabin`

which allows any integer, and `prime?`

which checks the value and either call `miller_rabin`

or raise ArgumentError.

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-15:

I think it would be interesting to expose the algorithm for larger numbers. So you could have

`miller_rabin`

which allows any integer, and`prime?`

which checks the value and either call`miller_rabin`

or raise ArgumentError.

Unforunately Miller-Rabin is not a deterministic test for arbitrarily large n - its only the work in the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00864.pdf that allows us to provide functionality up to a bound.

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File**deleted ()*patch_with_argument_error_and_tests.diff*

#### Updated by steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) over 4 years ago

**File**prime_patch.diff prime_patch.diff added

Attached is the latest diff.

#### Updated by Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) over 4 years ago

steveb3210 (Stephen Blackstone) wrote in #note-16:

Unforunately Miller-Rabin is not a deterministic test for arbitrarily large n - its only the work in the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00864.pdf that allows us to provide functionality up to a bound.

Yes, I know, that was my point. Maybe I want to know if arbitrarily large N is prime *while accepting a probability of error* of 4**(-k); then I could use `miller_rabin(k)`

. And the `prime?`

method uses a bounds check and `miller_rabin(13)`

to produce a deterministic result.

BTW your implementation appears to be off by one. It should be: if self >= 3317044064679887385961981 then raise ArgumentError. You could also slightly reduce the runtime for small numbers by using `return list.include?(self) if self <= list.last`

before the loop, instead of checking inside the loop.

#### Updated by Anonymous almost 4 years ago

**Status**changed from*Open*to*Closed*

Applied in changeset git|1866d483dce614a02c5186bd0588b48a5041e55e.

[ruby/prime] Optimize `Integer#prime?`

Miller Rabin algorithm can be used to test primality for integers smaller than a max value "MaxMR" (~3e24)

It can be much faster than previous implementation: ~100x faster for numbers with 13 digits, at least 5 orders of magnitude for even larger numbers (previous implementation is so slow that it requires more patience than I have for more precise estimate).

Miller Rabin test becomes faster than previous implementation at somewhere in the range 1e5-1e6. It seems that the range 62000..66000 is where Miller Rabin starts being always faster, so I picked 0xffff arbitrarily; before that, or above "MaxMR", the previous implementation remains.

I compared the `faster_prime`

gem too. It is slower than previous implementation up to ~1e4. After that it becomes faster and faster compared to previous implementation, but is still slower than Miller Rabin starting at ~1e5 and up to MaxMR. Thus, after this commit, builtin `Integer#prime?`

will be similar or faster than `faster_prime`

up to "MaxMR".

Adapted from patch of Stephen Blackstone [Feature #16468]

Benchmark results and code: https://gist.github.com/marcandre/b263bdae488e76dabdda84daf73733b9

Co-authored-by: Stephen Blackstone sblackstone@gmail.com