Message335956
| Author | mark.dickinson |
|---|---|
| Recipients | lschoe, mark.dickinson, pablogsal, rhettinger, skrah, steven.daprano, tim.peters |
| Date | 2019-02-19.15:32:02 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1550590322.49.0.739872280444.issue36027@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> it's still a bit subtle that you have to use pow(a, -1,p) instead of pow(a, p-2, p) to let the modular inverse be computed efficiently That's not 100% clear: the binary powering algorithm used to compute `pow(a, p-2, p)` is fairly efficient; the extended gcd algorithm used to compute the inverse may or may not end up being comparable. I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see `pow(a, p-2, p)` beat a pure Python xgcd for computing the inverse. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2019-02-19 15:32:02 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients: + mark.dickinson, tim.peters, rhettinger, steven.daprano, skrah, pablogsal, lschoe |
| 2019-02-19 15:32:02 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1550590322.49.0.739872280444.issue36027@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2019-02-19 15:32:02 | mark.dickinson | link | issue36027 messages |
| 2019-02-19 15:32:02 | mark.dickinson | create | |