Edge Rewrite
// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21bfc554b8d452a

Jump to content

Talk:Index calculus algorithm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 10 years ago by 109.90.224.162 in topic But the logarithm is not unique?

[Untitled]

[edit]

What a great algorithm, and well described! It seems like the discrete logarithm of any number which is near a product of powers (in Z not Zq) of guessable factors can be found quite easily. If only we can get to step 10...

--jdb 67.127.185.246 08:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dubious

[edit]

Although they're generally similar in run-time charactersitics, isn't the number field sieve actually faster for solving the duiscrete log in GF(p)? (See the Chris Studholme paper for a description; it's not just a factorization algorithm.) The index calculus algorithm is particularly fast for GF(2n), or generally GF(pn) for small p and large n, so it might beat out NFS there.

The index calculus algorithm has the great advantage that most of the computation is independent of the number to be solved for, so once you've completed stages 1 & 2, you can solve a particular discrete log problem quickly.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the NFS a (vastly improved) variant of index calculus? So that while the statement might be misleading it is not completely wrong? caramdir (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Super weak article...

[edit]

BTW, AFAIK the GNFS is the exponentially fastest known algorithm for computing discrete logs (mod p). Nageh (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

How to caluculate the log(p_i)?

[edit]

Ok, most of this is clear, but how to find the values of the discrete logarithm of the small prime factors?  Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.224.162 (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

But the logarithm is not unique?

[edit]

One can add a multiple of .  Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.224.162 (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply