Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Mathematics
General TopicsResearchOperations ResearchStatisticsMathematical LogicNumerical AnalysisUndergraduate MathAlgebra HelpRecreational Math
Math Software
MapleMathematicaMATLABScilabSASSPSS

Math Forum / Mathematics / Undergraduate Math / January 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Euclid's algorithm

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Gina Smith - 28 Jan 2009 13:12 GMT
How can one show that the Euclid's algorithm requires at most
floor{log_2(x)+log_2(y)}divisions in order to find gcd(x,y) ?  What would be
an example of an algorithm that used at most floor{sqrt(x)}divisions to find
a proper factor of x or deduce that x is prime?  Any help would be
appreciated immensely.  Thank you.
David C. Ullrich - 29 Jan 2009 09:21 GMT
>How can one show that the Euclid's algorithm requires at most
>floor{log_2(x)+log_2(y)}divisions in order to find gcd(x,y) ?  What would be
>an example of an algorithm that used at most floor{sqrt(x)}divisions to find
>a proper factor of x or deduce that x is prime?  

Can you come up with _any_ algorithm to find a factor of x or deduce
that it's prime? There's an obvious one - how many divisions does it
take?

There are various versions of the "obvious" one - it may happen that
your obvious version takes only sqrt(x) divisions and you're set.
Or you may come up with the obvious version that takes x divisions;
in that case think about how you might improve it to sqrt(n).

>Any help would be
>appreciated immensely.  Thank you.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
Tim Smith - 30 Jan 2009 14:28 GMT
> How can one show that the Euclid's algorithm requires at most
> floor{log_2(x)+log_2(y)}divisions in order to find gcd(x,y) ?  What would be
> an example of an algorithm that used at most floor{sqrt(x)}divisions to find
> a proper factor of x or deduce that x is prime?  Any help would be
> appreciated immensely.  Thank you.

Well, one thing that comes to mind is to note that log_2(x) is the
number of digits of x when x is represented in base 2.

Suppose x > y (if not, swap x and y).  If x has more binary digits than
y, then x % y will have less digits than x, since x % y < y.  If x and
y have the same number of binary digits, then again x % y will have
less digits than x, because x < 2y, and so x % y = x - y, and when you
subtract two numbers with the same number of digits in binary, you get
a number with less digits.

You can probably take it from there.

Or, you can apply the general algorithm that is used for most problems
of this nature: look in Knuth. :-)

Signature

--Tim Smith

Virgil - 30 Jan 2009 21:46 GMT
In article <wQYfl.11482$sj5.2805@newsfe11.ams2>,
"Gina Smith" <anti@spam.net> wrote:

> How can one show that the Euclid's algorithm requires at most
> floor{log_2(x)+log_2(y)}divisions in order to find gcd(x,y) ?  What would be
> an example of an algorithm that used at most floor{sqrt(x)}divisions to find
> a proper factor of x or deduce that x is prime?  Any help would be
> appreciated immensely.  Thank you.

IIRC, the worst case , for naturals under a given size, occurs with the
largest two successive members of the Fibonacci series up to that size.

Don't know if that will hep at all.
Gina Smith - 31 Jan 2009 22:04 GMT
> How can one show that the Euclid's algorithm requires at most
> floor{log_2(x)+log_2(y)}divisions in order to find gcd(x,y) ?  What would
> be an example of an algorithm that used at most floor{sqrt(x)}divisions to
> find a proper factor of x or deduce that x is prime?  Any help would be
> appreciated immensely.  Thank you.

Thank you very much David, Tim and Virgil.  I worked on this problem working
with the hints of Tim and David in particular and proved the result.  In
fact, the nicest proof seems to be by usin induction on n=x+y.  The sqrt(x)
bound that David mentions was also easy to obtain by just thinking of how
one checks if a no. is prime--I should have got that, sorry!

Thanks again. You've been a great help.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.