Fermat's factorization method
That difference is algebraically factorable as ; if neither factor equals one, it is a proper factorization of N.
Each odd number has such a representation. Indeed, if is a factorization of N, then
Since N is odd, then c and d are also odd, so those halves are integers. (A multiple of four is also a difference of squares: let c and d be even.)
In its simplest form, Fermat's method might be even slower than trial division (worst case). Nonetheless, the combination of trial division and Fermat's is more effective than either.
The basic method
One tries various values of a, hoping that , a square.
FermatFactor(N): // N should be odd
a ← ceil(sqrt(N))
b2 ← a*a - N
while b2 isn't a square:
a ← a + 1 // equivalently: b2 ← b2 + 2*a + 1
b2 ← a*a - N // a ← a + 1
return a - sqrt(b2) // or a + sqrt(b2)
For example, to factor , our first try for a is the square root of rounded up to the next integer which is . Then, . Since b is not an integer, a second try is made by increasing the value of a by 1. The second attempt again fails because b is not an integer.
The third try produces a perfect square so b is an integer. So, , , and the factors of are , and .
Suppose N has more than two prime factors. That procedure first finds the factorization with the least values of a and b. That is, is the smallest factor ≥ the square-root of N. And so is the largest factor ≤ root-N. If the procedure finds , that shows that N is prime.
For , let c be the largest subroot factor. , so the number of steps is approximately .
If N is prime (so that ), one needs steps! This is a bad way to prove primality. But if N has a factor close to its square-root, the method works quickly. More precisely, if c differs less than from the method requires only one step. Note that this is independent of the size of N.
Fermat's and trial division
Consider trying to factor the prime number N = 2345678917, but also compute b and a − b throughout. Going up from , we can tabulate:
|a − b||48,156.3||48,017.5||47,915.1||47,830.1|
In practice, one wouldn't bother with that last row, until b is an integer. But observe that if N had a subroot factor above , Fermat's method would have found it already.
Trial division would normally try up to 48,432; but after only four Fermat steps, we need only divide up to 47830, to find a factor or prove primality.
This all suggests a combined factoring method. Choose some bound ; use Fermat for factors between and . This gives a bound for trial division which is . In the above example, with the bound for trial division is 47830. A reasonable choice could be giving a bound of 28937.
In this regard, Fermat's method gives diminishing returns. One would surely stop before this point:
|a − b||24,582.9||24,582.2|
It is not necessary to compute all the square-roots of , nor even examine all the values for . Examine the table for :
One can quickly tell that none of these values of b2 are squares. Squares end with 0, 1, 4, 5, 9, or 16 modulo 20. The values repeat with each increase of by 10. For this example, adding '-17' mod 20 (or 3), produces 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 19 modulo 20 for these values. It is apparent that only the 4 from this list can be a square. Thus, must be 1 mod 20, which means that is 1 or 9 mod 10; it will produce a b2 which ends in 4 mod 20 and, if square, will end in 2 or 8 mod 10.
This can be performed with any modulus. Using the same ,
|modulo 16:||Squares are||0, 1, 4, or 9|
|N mod 16 is||5|
|so can only be||9|
|and must be||3 or 5 or 11 or 13 modulo 16|
|modulo 9:||Squares are||0, 1, 4, or 7|
|N mod 9 is||7|
|so can only be||7|
|and must be||4 or 5 modulo 9|
One generally chooses a power of a different prime for each modulus.
Given a sequence of a-values (start, end, and step) and a modulus, one can proceed thus:
FermatSieve(N, astart, aend, astep, modulus)
a ← astart
do modulus times:
b2 ← a*a - N
if b2 is a square, modulo modulus:
FermatSieve(N, a, aend, astep * modulus, NextModulus)
a ← a + astep
But the recursion is stopped when few a-values remain; that is, when (aend-astart)/astep is small. Also, because a's step-size is constant, one can compute successive b2's with additions.
Fermat's method works best when there is a factor near the square-root of N.
If the approximate ratio of two factors () is known, then the rational number can picked near that value. , and the factors are roughly equal: Fermat's, applied to Nuv, will find them quickly. Then and . (Unless c divides u or d divides v.)
Generally, if the ratio is not known, various values can be tried, and try to factor each resulting Nuv. R. Lehman devised a systematic way to do this, so that Fermat's plus trial division can factor N in time.
The fundamental ideas of Fermat's factorization method are the basis of the quadratic sieve and general number field sieve, the best-known algorithms for factoring large semiprimes, which are the "worst-case". The primary improvement that quadratic sieve makes over Fermat's factorization method is that instead of simply finding a square in the sequence of , it finds a subset of elements of this sequence whose product is a square, and it does this in a highly efficient manner. The end result is the same: a difference of square mod n that, if nontrivial, can be used to factor n.
- Completing the square
- Factorization of polynomials
- Factor theorem
- FOIL rule
- Monoid factorisation
- Pascal's triangle
- Prime factor
- Euler's factorization method
- Integer factorization
- Program synthesis
- Table of Gaussian integer factorizations
- Unique factorization
- J. McKee, "Speeding Fermat's factoring method", Mathematics of Computation, 68:1729-1737 (1999).
- Fermat's factorization running time, at blogspot.in