\begin{document}
\documentclass[11pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{complexity}
\usepackage{graphicx}

\usepackage{palatino} %what a beautiful font!

\newcommand{\handout}[5]{
\noindent
\begin{center}
\framebox[\textwidth]{
\vbox{
\hbox to \textwidth { {\bf #2}\hfill {\bf Computational Number Theory }
}
\vspace{4mm}
\hbox to \textwidth { {\Large \hfill #5  \hfill} }
\vspace{2mm}
\hbox to \textwidth { {\em #3 \hfill #4} }
}
}
\end{center}
\vspace*{4mm}
}

\newcommand{\lecture}[4]{\handout{#1}{#2}{Instructor: #3}{Scribe:
#4}{Lecture #1}}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{theorem*}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{definition}[]{Definition}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\newtheorem{fact}[]{Fact}
\newtheorem{subclaim}[theorem]{Subclaim}

% my custom commands
\newcommand{\inparen}[1]{\left(#1\right)}             %\inparen{x+y}  is (x+y)
\newcommand{\inbrace}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}           %\inbrace{x+y}  is {x+y}
\newcommand{\insquar}[1]{\left[#1\right]}             %\insquar{x+y}  is [x+y]
\newcommand{\inangle}[1]{\left\langle#1\right\rangle} %\inangle{A}    is <A>
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}                 %\abs{x}        is |x|
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\Vert#1\right\Vert}        %\norm{x}       is ||x||
\newcommand{\union}{\cup}
\newcommand{\Union}{\bigcup}
\newcommand{\intersection}{\cap}
\newcommand{\Intersection}{\bigcap}
\newcommand{\super}[2]{#1^{\inparen{#2}}}             %\super{G}{i-1} is G^{(i-1)}
\newcommand{\setdef}[2]{\inbrace{{#1}\ : \ {#2}}}
\newcommand{\inv}[1]{#1^{-1}}
\newcommand{\inrpdt}[2]{\left\langle{#1},{#2}\right\rangle}%\inrpdt{x}{y} is <x,y>.
\newcommand{\pderiv}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\iso}{\cong}
\newcommand{\bea}[1]{\begin{eqnarray*} #1 \end{eqnarray*}}
\newcommand{\legendre}[2]{\inparen{\frac{#1}{#2}}}

% Commands specific to this file
% TODO: Find the right way to typeset group index
\DeclareMathOperator{\Sym}{Sym}
\newcommand{\gpidx}[2]{\insquar{#1 : #2}}             %\gpidx{H}{K}   is [H : K]
\newcommand{\gpigs}[2]{\gpidx{\super{G}{#1}}{\super{G}{#2}}} %Group index of g super ...
\newcommand{\llhd}{\!\!\lhd\!\!\lhd}
\newcommand{\roundoff}[1]{\left\lfloor #1 \right\rceil}

% \newcommand{\ceil}[1]{\lceil #1 \rceil}
\newcommand{\floor}[1]{\lfloor #1 \rfloor}
\newcommand{\F}{\mathbb{F}}
\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}
\newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}
\renewcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\renewcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}

%for algorithms
\renewcommand{\algorithmicrequire}{\textbf{Input:}}

% Problems we look at
\newcommand{\GIso}{\lang{Graph\text{-}Iso}} %Without \text, ugly minus instead of hyphen.
\newcommand{\GAut}{\lang{Graph\text{-}Aut}}
\newcommand{\SStab}{\lang{Set\text{-}Stab}}

%for Quantum computing
\newcommand{\q}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle}

\lecture{25 : The AKS Primality Test }{CS681}{Piyush P Kurur}{Ramprasad Saptharishi}

We shall do the AKS primality test this class.

\section{The Deterministic Primality Test}

The algorithm is going to be the following:

\begin{enumerate}
\item Find two numbers $r$ and $l$ based on some requirements
\item Check if $n$ is a perfect power. If it is, output {\sc
composite.}
\item Check if any of the numbers less than $l$ have a non-trivial gcd
with $n.$ If they do, output {\sc composite.}
\item For all $1\leq a\leq l,$ check if the following identity holds
$$(X+a)^n = X^n + a \pmod{n,X^r - 1}$$
Use repeated squaring to evaluate the LHS and RHS and check.

If any of the test failed, output {\sc composite}.
\item If all the above tests succeeded, output {\sc prime}
\end{enumerate}

We shall figure out what the requirement of $r$,$l$ as we go
along. That would give a better picture of why we want those
properties. \\

The algorithm will be in a way that if $n$ was indeed a prime then the
algorithm would answer correctly. We only need to make sure that the
algorithm doesn't make a mistake on composite $n.$ We shall ensure
that if a composite $n$ passes all the tests, then $n$ has to be a
power of a prime. And since we saw that testing of a number was a
perfect power is easy, that is one of our preprocessing steps and
hence such $n$ will be eliminated. We shall now choose parameters in a
way that no composite $n$ can pass all the test. \\

Let us assume that $n$ is composite, has $p$ as a proper divisor and
is not a power of $p.$ And let us assume that $n$ passes all the
tests. Note that $p$ has to be larger than $l$ since we have already
made sure that $n$ does not have any small factor in step $3.$\\

The test is basically checking the identity $(X+a)^n = X^n + a \pmod{n,X^r - 1}$, which is just checking if two terms in the ring
$R = \Z[X]/(n,X^r - 1) = \frac{\Z/n\Z[X]}(X^r - 1).$ Rings are a
little hard to handle; would be easier to go to a field.

\subsection{Moving to a Field}

Instead of looking at $R = \frac{\Z/n\Z[X]}{(X^r - 1)}$, we shall look
at the field $\F_p[X]/(h(X))$ where $h(X)$ the minimal polynomial of
the primitive $r$-th root of unity. Note that this just starting with
$R$, going modulo the ideal generated by $p$, then going modulo the
ideal generated by $h(X).$ The ideal generated by $p$ is a prime ideal
in $R$ and therefore $R/(p)$ became an integral domain. Then $h(X)$
generates a maximal ideal being irreducible, and therefore we get the
field $\F = \F_p[X]/(h(X)).$

The important thing to note here is that, if equations were satisfied
in $R$, they have to be satisfied in $\F$ as well as we are just going
modulo some ideals. This is like saying, if $a = b$ in $Z$, then of
course they are equal $\bmod{p}$ as well. Thus let us work with this
field. Now the next thing to note that in $\F_p[X]/(h(X))$, it is just
$\F_p(\zeta)$ and $X$ plays the role of $\zeta.$ Thus, if some $n$
survived all the tests, then for each $1\leq a \leq l$
$$(X+a)^n = X^n + a \bmod{p,h(X)}$$

Let us characterize this property of $n$ by the following definition.

\begin{definition}
A number $m$ is called introspective for a polynomial $f$ if
$$f(X)^m = f(X^m)\quad\text{ in }\F$$
\end{definition}
As the name suggests, it says that $m$ is curious with respect to $X;$
such powering can be pulled inside the brackets. The tests basically
mean that $n$ is introspective for $f(X) = (X+a).$ The following two
observations are trivial.

\begin{observation}
If $m_1$ and $m_2$ are introspective for $f$, then so is $m_1m_2.$
\end{observation}
\begin{observation}
If $m$ is introspective for $f$ and $g$, then $m$ is introspective for $fg.$
\end{observation}

Since $n$ passed the tests, we know that $n$ is introspective for
$(X+a)$ for all $1\leq a\leq l.$ And also note that, by the binomial
theorem in $\F_p[X]$,
$$(X+a)^p = X^p + a$$
for any $a.$ Therefore, $p$ is introspective for $(X+a)$ as
well. Therefore, by the two observations, and $n^ip^j$ is introspective
for $\prod_{1\leq a_i\leq l} (X+a_i).$ Let us create two groups to
capture this property.

\subsection{The two groups}

Let $G$ be the group generated by $n$ and $p$ modulo $r.$ Or in other
words, $G$ is the set of numbers of the form $n^ip^j$ modulo $r.$

Similarly, let $\mathcal{G}$ be the group generated by
$\setdef{(X+a)}{1\leq a\leq l}$ in $\F.$ And by the two observations,
any element of $G$ is introspective to any element of $\mathcal{G}.$
\bea{
G & = & \inangle{n,p} \subseteq (\Z/r\Z)^\star\\
\mathcal{G} & = & \inangle{\setdef{(X+a)}{1\leq a\leq l}}\subseteq \F
}

Let $|G| = t.$ Since $G$ is a subgroup of $(\Z/r\Z)^\star$, $t\leq r.$
Now note that the group generated by $n$ is a subgroup of $G$ and its
cardinality is $ord_r(n).$ Therefore $t > ord_r(n).$

We shall now get two bounds on the size of $\mathcal{G}.$

\subsection{An Upper Bound on $|\mathcal{G}|$}

Not that every element of $\mathcal{G}$ is actually a product of
$(\zeta+a)$'s since $X$ is $\zeta$ in $\F.$ In order to get a bound on
the size of $\mathcal{G}$ let us restrict ourselves to just products
of distinct $(\zeta + a)$'s. Set $l = t-1.$

For every subset $K$ of ${1,2,\cdots l},$ we can construct a
polynomial $f_K(X) = \prod_{i\in K}(X+i).$ And there are $2^t$ such
polynomials. These polynomials are clearly distinct as each of them
has a different set of roots. But what happens if we substitute
$\zeta$ in them? Is it possible that for $K \neq K'$, $f_K(\zeta) = f_{K'}(\zeta)$?

Suppose they were equal, then note that $f_K(\zeta)^m = f_{K'}(\zeta)^m$ for any $m$, and in particular any $m\in G.$ If $m$
is in $G$, then $f_K(\zeta^m) = f_K(\zeta)^m = f_{K'}(\zeta)^m = f_{K'}(\zeta^m).$ Thus, if $g(X) = f_K(X) - f_{K'}(X)$, then $\zeta^m$
is a root of $g$ for every $m\in G.$ But since $|G| = t$, this means
that $g(X)$ has $t$ roots. But $g(X)$ is a polynomial of degree at most $l$
which is less than $t.$ Such a polynomial cannot have $t$
roots unless it is the zero polynomial. Thus, $f_K(\zeta)$s are
distinct. Since there are $2^{t-1}$ possible $f_K(X)$s possible, each
of this would give a distinct $f_K(\zeta)$ in $\mathcal{G}.$
Therefore,
$$|\mathcal{G}| \geq 2^{t-1}$$

\subsection{A Lower Bound for $|\mathcal{G}|$}

Look at the set $S = \setdef{n^ip^j}{0\leq i,j\leq \sqrt{t}}.$ And if
$n$ wasn't a power of $p$, this set $S$ has $(1+\sqrt{t})^2 > t$
elements. Now, considering them modulo $r$, they are a subset of $|G|$
and by pigeon hole principle, there must be some $m_1\neq m_2\in S$ such
that $m_1 = m_2\bmod{r}$ and therefore $m_1 = m_2 + kr.$ Then, if
$f(\zeta) \in \mathcal{G}$
$$f(\zeta)^{m_2} = f(\zeta)^{m_1+kr} = f(\zeta^{m_1+kr}) = f(\zeta^{m_1}) = f(\zeta)^{m_1}$$
Thus, if we were to consider $g(X) = X^{m_1} - X^{m_2}$, then every
$f(\zeta)\in \mathcal{G}$ is a root of $g(X).$ Note that degree of
$g(X)$ is at most the max of $m_1,m_2$. And $m_1 = n^ip^j \leq n^{\sqrt{t}}n^{\sqrt{t}} = n^{2\sqrt{t}}.$ And since the degree of $g$
is is at most $n^{2\sqrt{t}}$, the number of roots can also be only
that much. Therefore
$$|\mathcal{G}| \leq n^{2\sqrt{t}}$$

\subsection{Conflicting Bounds}

Combining the two bounds, we have
$$2^{t-1}\leq |\mathcal{G}|\leq n^{2\sqrt{t}}$$

Now if we can ensure that the lower bound is larger than the upper
bound, we would get the contradiction we are looking for; that would
rule out the possiblity that a composite number passed all the tests.

Thus we want $2^{t-1}> n^{2\sqrt{t}}.$ Taking logs, $t-1 > 2\sqrt{t}\lg{n}.$ And if $t > 4\log^2{n}$, that should be to make the
bounds for $|\mathcal{G}|$ contradict. \\

Thus all we need to do now is find an $r$ so that $ord_r(n) > 4\log^2n.$

\subsection{Getting an $r$ such that $ord_r(n) > 4\log^2n$}

What we shall do to get an $r$ is just try $1,2,\cdots$ until it is
satisfied. But how long would we have to go until we hit a good $r?$

Look at the following number
$$B = \prod_{i=1}^{4\log^2n}(n^i - 1) < n^{\log^4n}$$
If $r$ was a prime number not dividing this $B$, then the order of $n$
modulo $r$ cannot be less than $4\log^2n.$ The number of prime factors
of $B$ is at most $\log^4n\log n = \log^5n.$ And therefore, the
$\log^5n +1$-th prime would definitely not divide $B.$ Therefore, we
can just enumerate all primes starting from $2$ and get the
$\log^5n+1$-th prime. And this search is assured to be within
$\log^6n$ by the prime number theorem. Therefore, we are in good
shape.

\section{The Final Algorithm}

Thus, putting all the pieces together.

\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\sc{AKS Primality Test}}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Check if the input number $n$ is a perfect power of some
number. If so, {\bf return} {\sc composite.}
\STATE Find the least prime $r$ such that $ord_r(n) > 4\log^2n.$ Let
$l = ord_r(n) - 1.$ In the process, check if any of those $r$'s have a
non-trivial factor with $n$. If yes, {\bf return} {\sc composite.}
\FOR{$1\leq a\leq l$}
\IF{$(X+a)^n \neq X^n + a \bmod{(n,X^r - 1)}$}
\STATE {\bf return }{\sc composite.}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE {\bf return } {\sc prime.}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

The total time complexity is about $O(\log^{12}n).$ The
current best is about $O(\log^6n).$
\end{document}