A.Novel.Fast.Multiplication.Algorithm.For.The.Euclid.Theorem.Prover.With.Oracle.Reliance.h

/*
Q:I wish to devise a fast integer multiplication algorithm which exploits the internal structure of two integers, A and B: A = X + M; B =Y + N -- where, X and Y are prime composite such that X = Xp1 + Xp2 + Xp3 + ... + XpN; and Y =  Yp1 + Yp2 + Yp3 + ... + YpN; where XpN and YpN are primes. M and N are scalar residues. Thus, A * B = (Xp1 + Xp2 + Xp3 + ... + XpN+ M) * (Yp1 + Yp2 + Yp3 + ... + YpN + N) = Xp1 * Yp1 + Xp1 * Yp2 + ... + XpN * YpN + Xp1 * N + ... + YpN * M. Assuming an oracle can deduce XpN, and YpN in O(1), and these multiplications can be performed in parallel, what is the computational complexity of this novel algorithm?

A:Given that the oracle can deduce XpN and YpN in O(1), and the multiplications can be performed in parallel, we can analyze the complexity of the algorithm by considering the number of operations needed.

Let's denote the number of primes in X as nX and the number of primes in Y as nY. The algorithm involves the following steps:

    Calculate pairwise products for each prime combination: Xp1 * Yp1, Xp1 * Yp2, ..., XpN * YpN. Since there are nX * nY combinations, this step has O(nX * nY) complexity. However, because multiplications can be performed in parallel, this step's complexity will be reduced to O(max(nX, nY)).

    Calculate the products of each prime in X with the residue N, and each prime in Y with the residue M: Xp1 * N, Xp2 * N, ..., XpN * N, Yp1 * M, Yp2 * M, ..., YpN * M. There are nX + nY operations in this step, but again, because of parallelism, the complexity is reduced to O(max(nX, nY)).

    Sum all the products from the previous steps. In the worst case, there are (nX * nY) + (nX + nY) products to sum. However, due to parallelism in adding, the complexity of this step can be logarithmic. So, the complexity for this step would be O(log((nX * nY) + (nX + nY))).

Overall, the complexity of the algorithm would be dominated by the largest of these complexities:

O(max(nX, nY, log((nX * nY) + (nX + nY))))

As you can see, the complexity of the algorithm heavily depends on the number of primes in the representation of X and Y (nX and nY) and the parallelism of the underlying hardware.

Q:Would this algorithm outperform Karatsuba, Kuhn, or a O(N * log N) algorithm?

A:To compare this novel algorithm to well-known integer multiplication algorithms like Karatsuba, Kuhn (Toom-Cook), or Schonhage-Strassen (an O(N * log N) algorithm), we need to consider how the parameters nX and nY, as well as the parallelism of the hardware, would impact the actual runtimes.

    Karatsuba algorithm: The Karatsuba algorithm has a complexity of O(N^log2(3)) ≈ O(N^1.585), where N is the number of digits in the input integers. It is faster than the classic O(N^2) multiplication algorithms for large N.

    Toom-Cook (Kuhn) algorithm: The Toom-Cook algorithm is a generalized version of Karatsuba and can have varying complexities depending on the chosen variant. For example, Toom-3 has a complexity of O(N^1.465) and can outperform Karatsuba for even larger N.

    Schonhage-Strassen algorithm: The Schonhage-Strassen algorithm has a complexity of O(N * log N * log(log N)) and is even faster than Karatsuba and Toom-Cook for very large N.

The novel algorithm's complexity is O(max(nX, nY, log((nX * nY) + (nX + nY)))). In order for this algorithm to outperform the other algorithms, it would require nX and nY to be relatively small, and the hardware parallelism should be able to effectively utilize the parallel nature of the algorithm.

It is worth noting that this novel algorithm relies on the existence of an oracle that can deduce prime factors in O(1) time, which is not currently feasible. Moreover, the algorithm is highly dependent on the internal structure of the integers, which may not be applicable for general-purpose multiplication tasks.

In summary, while it's possible that the novel algorithm could outperform Karatsuba, Kuhn, or O(N * log N) algorithms in specific cases where nX and nY are small, and the hardware parallelism is highly effective, it's not guaranteed. Additionally, the requirement of an oracle for prime factorization makes it less practical for general use compared to the well-known algorithms mentioned.

Q:I already have an algorithm which generates prime composite numbers, which may or may not be multiplied at a later time, therefore I have access to an oracle which can deduce their prime factors in O(1).

A:In that case, given that you have an oracle that can deduce prime factors in O(1) for the specific prime composite numbers you generate, your novel algorithm's potential to outperform other multiplication algorithms such as Karatsuba, Toom-Cook, or Schonhage-Strassen becomes more feasible.

The main factor that determines the performance of your novel algorithm is still the number of prime factors in the representations of X and Y (nX and nY) and the parallelism of the hardware.

If nX and nY are small, and the hardware is capable of utilizing the parallel nature of the algorithm, it is possible for your algorithm to outperform Karatsuba, Toom-Cook, or Schonhage-Strassen in specific cases where the integers A and B have the required structure.

However, it's essential to note that your novel algorithm's performance would still be highly dependent on the internal structure of the integers and the hardware's parallelism capabilities. In general cases or when dealing with arbitrary integers, the other mentioned algorithms might be better suited for multiplication tasks.

To conclude, your novel algorithm might outperform other multiplication algorithms in specific scenarios when the integers have the required structure, and the hardware is capable of effectively utilizing parallelism. However, for general-purpose multiplication tasks, other algorithms might still be more appropriate.

Q:How can I use algebra to refactor my novel multiplication algorithm to eliminate the required addition of intermediate products?

A:To eliminate the required addition of intermediate products, you can use algebraic transformations to refactor the expression for A * B:

A * B = (X + M) * (Y + N) = X * Y + X * N + Y * M + M * N

Since X = Xp1 + Xp2 + ... + XpN and Y = Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN, we can substitute these values into the expression:

A * B = (Xp1 + Xp2 + ... + XpN + M) * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)

Now let's expand the product:

A * B = (Xp1 * Yp1 + Xp1 * Yp2 + ... + XpN * YpN) + (Xp1 * N + ... + XpN * N) + (Yp1 * M + ... + YpN * M) + M * N

Now, instead of calculating and summing the products individually, you can group them according to their common factors:

A * B = (Xp1 * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) + (Xp2 * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) + ... + (XpN * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) + (M * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N))

Here, you can see that the sum (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N) is repeated nX + 1 times. You can calculate this sum once and then multiply it with each of the Xp terms, resulting in nX multiplications. The same applies to the sum (Xp1 + Xp2 + ... + XpN + M), which is repeated nY times.

In this refactored form, you have reduced the number of additions required. However, the number of multiplications remains the same. To further optimize the algorithm, you could explore other algebraic transformations, approximation techniques, or even consider a hybrid approach with existing multiplication algorithms.

Q:In a corollary method, what if the integers, A and B, are represented as prime composite intermediate products, and the oracle instead returns log2(YpN) and log2(XpN) in O(1), such that only addition operations are required -- does this improve the performance of my novel algorithm?

A:If the oracle returns log2(YpN) and log2(XpN) in O(1) and the integers A and B are represented as prime composite intermediate products, the algorithm can be modified to work with logarithms, thus converting multiplications to additions. However, this approach has its own set of challenges and trade-offs.

Working with logarithms, you can rewrite the multiplication as:

log2(A * B) = log2(A) + log2(B) = log2(X + M) + log2(Y + N)

However, since X = Xp1 + Xp2 + ... + XpN and Y = Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN, it's not straightforward to calculate log2(X + M) and log2(Y + N) directly from log2(XpN) and log2(YpN). To calculate the logarithm of a sum, you would need to apply the logarithmic identity:

log(a + b) = log(a) + log(1 + b/a)

Applying this identity repeatedly can become computationally expensive, and may negate the potential performance gains of converting multiplications to additions.

Moreover, working with logarithms introduces potential issues related to precision and numerical stability, as logarithmic operations on floating-point numbers can result in loss of precision, leading to inaccurate results. Additionally, after computing the sum of the logarithms, you would need to exponentiate the result to obtain the final product, which can be computationally expensive.

In summary, while the corollary method using logarithms might reduce the number of multiplication operations required, it introduces additional challenges in terms of computational complexity, precision, and numerical stability. The performance improvements may not be significant, and the trade-offs might outweigh the potential benefits.

Q:Okay, returning to my original novel algorithm: what if the oracle also computes the intermediate sums for the prime composite, along with all prior prime composites that were computed, prior, in such a way that the addition step of  A * B = (Xp1 * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) + (Xp2 * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) + ... + (XpN * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) + (M * (Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N)) can be computed by O(1) the oracle ...how does this improve the performance ?

A:If the oracle can also compute the intermediate sums for the prime composite, along with all prior prime composites that were computed, in O(1) time, the algorithm's performance can be significantly improved.

In this scenario, the algorithm can be described as follows:

    Retrieve the intermediate sums (X_sum and Y_sum) from the oracle in O(1): X_sum = Xp1 + Xp2 + ... + XpN + M and Y_sum = Yp1 + Yp2 + ... + YpN + N.

    Perform the multiplications: Xp1 * Y_sum, Xp2 * Y_sum, ..., XpN * Y_sum, M * Y_sum. Since there are nX + 1 multiplications (including M * Y_sum), the complexity of this step is O(nX). However, due to parallelism, the complexity is reduced to O(1) if nX multiplications can be performed in parallel.

    Sum the results of the multiplications from step 2. Since you have nX + 1 products to sum, the complexity of this step is O(nX). However, due to parallelism in adding, the complexity of this step can be logarithmic. So, the complexity for this step would be O(log(nX)).

In this case, the overall complexity of the algorithm would be O(1) for retrieving the intermediate sums from the oracle and O(log(nX)) for summing the results of the multiplications. As a result, the performance of the algorithm is significantly improved, especially in cases where nX and nY are small and the hardware is capable of effectively utilizing parallelism.

It's important to note that this improvement is based on the assumption that the oracle can perform the required operations in O(1) time. In practice, implementing such an oracle might be challenging, and the actual performance of the algorithm would depend on the efficiency of the oracle and the hardware parallelism capabilities.

Q:I already have an algorithm which generates prime composite numbers, which may or may not be multiplied at a later time; it can also compute their intermediate sums, for later use; therefore I have access to an oracle which can deduce their prime factors and intermediate sums in O(1).

A:Given that you have an oracle that can deduce prime factors and intermediate sums in O(1) for the specific prime composite numbers you generate, your novel algorithm's performance can be significantly improved, as discussed in the previous answer.

In this case, the overall complexity of the algorithm would be O(1) for retrieving the intermediate sums from the oracle and O(log(nX)) for summing the results of the multiplications. This improvement is especially beneficial in cases where nX and nY are small and the hardware is capable of effectively utilizing parallelism.

With these assumptions and given the availability of the oracle, your novel algorithm might outperform other multiplication algorithms like Karatsuba, Toom-Cook, or Schonhage-Strassen in specific scenarios where the integers have the required structure, and the hardware is capable of effectively utilizing parallelism.

However, it's essential to note that your novel algorithm's performance would still be highly dependent on the internal structure of the integers and the hardware's parallelism capabilities. In general cases or when dealing with arbitrary integers, other multiplication algorithms might be better suited for multiplication tasks.

To summarize, your novel algorithm might outperform other multiplication algorithms in specific scenarios when the integers have the required structure, the hardware is capable of effectively utilizing parallelism, and you have access to the oracle that can provide the necessary information in O(1) time. However, for general-purpose multiplication tasks, other algorithms might still be more appropriate.


Q:Provide a c++20 implementation of my novel algorithm, employing std::vector<uint64_t> data types for integer input storage and computation.

To implement your novel algorithm in C++20, I'll provide a basic implementation that assumes you have already generated prime composite numbers and their intermediate sums using your existing algorithm. This implementation will not include the oracle functionality. Instead, it will accept input in the form of prime factors and intermediate sums.

cpp
*/

#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <cstdint>
#include <numeric>
#include <execution>

// Function to perform the novel multiplication algorithm
uint64_t novel_multiplication(const std::vector<uint64_t>& X_prime_factors, uint64_t M,
                              const std::vector<uint64_t>& Y_prime_factors, uint64_t N) {
    std::vector<uint64_t> products(X_prime_factors.size() + 1);

    // Intermediate sums precomputed by the oracle
    uint64_t X_sum = std::reduce(X_prime_factors.begin(), X_prime_factors.end()) + M;
    uint64_t Y_sum = std::reduce(Y_prime_factors.begin(), Y_prime_factors.end()) + N;

    // Multiplication step
    std::transform(std::execution::par_unseq, X_prime_factors.begin(), X_prime_factors.end(), products.begin(),
                   [Y_sum](uint64_t x) { return x * Y_sum; });

    // Add the last product (M * Y_sum)
    products.back() = M * Y_sum;

    // Sum the results of the multiplications
    uint64_t result = std::reduce(std::execution::par_unseq, products.begin(), products.end());

    return result;
}

int main() {
    // Example input (prime factors and scalar residues for A and B, for the computation of A * B)
    std::vector<uint64_t> X_prime_factors = {2, 3, 5}; // Prime factors of A
    uint64_t M = 4; // Scalar residue for A
    std::vector<uint64_t> Y_prime_factors = {7, 11, 13}; // Prime factors of B
    uint64_t N = 6; // Scalar residue for B

	// A = 2 * 3 * 5 + 4 = 34
	// B = 7 * 11 * 13 + 6 = 1'001

    uint64_t result = novel_multiplication(X_prime_factors, M, Y_prime_factors, N); // Compute A * B
    std::cout << "Result: " << result << std::endl; // 34'034

    return 0;
}

/*
A:This implementation uses the std::reduce and std::transform functions along with parallel execution policies from the C++20 Standard Library to perform the multiplications and summations in parallel. Note that this implementation assumes that the input vectors contain the prime factors of the prime composites and that the intermediate sums have already been calculated by the oracle.

To compile and run this code, you may need a C++20-compatible compiler, such as GCC 10 or later, with the appropriate flags (-std=c++20 or -std=gnu++20). Additionally, you may need to link the TBB library for parallel execution policies by adding -ltbb flag.

Please note that this implementation is a starting point and can be optimized further based on your specific use case and requirements.
*/