DOCSLIB.ORG

Unique Factorization in ACL2: Euclidean Domains

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unique Factorization in ACL2: Euclidean Domains Unique Factorization in ACL2: Euclidean Domains John R. Cowles Ruben Gamboa Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Wyoming University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Mathematicians have identified many domains, other than ACL2 is used to systematically study domains whose ele- the positive integers, that can also be said to have some form ments can be “uniquely” factored into products of “irre- of unique factorization. For example, polynomials, of a sin- ducible” elements. The best known examples of such do- gle variable, with rational coefficients, can each be factored mains are the positive integers, which can be factored into into a product of irreducible polynomials. Moreover, this products of primes, and univariate polynomials with ration- product is essentially unique except for the order of the ir- al coefficients, which can be factored into products of irre- reducible polynomials. ducible polynomials. There are many other such domains. We are using ACL2 to carry out a systematic study of Euclidean domains are an algebraic abstraction, of both such domains. We begin by studying domains where the the positive integers and the rational polynomials, in which standard proof, of unique factorization for the positive in- the usual proofs of unique factorization, for both the integers tegers, can be easily generalized. This explains the second and the polynomials, can be generalized. half of our title: Mathematicians call those domains, where the standard proof can be readily carried out, Euclidean [3, 8, 7]. Also, we anticipate eventually extending our study Categories and Subject Descriptors to domains where unique factorization holds, but where the F.4.1 [Mathematical Logic and Formal Languages]: proof is not a straight-forward generalization of the stan- Mathematical Logic—Mechanical theorem proving, Compu- dard proof for the positive integers. This is part of an even tational logic larger effort formalizing those parts of computational num- ber theory used in modern cryptography. General Terms Verification 2. THE STANDARD PROOF The statement of the theorem, in both THM and ACL2, Keywords uses finite lists of positive integers to represent factorizations of positive integers. Explicit functions are used to overcome Boyer-Moore logic,unique factorization, Euclidean domains, the complete lack of existential quantification in THM. ACL2 The statement of the theorem has two parts. Existence. This part states that an explicitly defined func- 1. INTRODUCTION tion produces a prime factorization of its positive in- Before the computational logic ACL2 [4], there was the teger input argument. version of the Boyer-Moore Logic known as NQTHM [2], and before NQTHM, there was the version of the logic called Uniqueness. This part states that any two lists of primes, THM [1]. In 1979, when the book A Computational Logic [1], whose products are equal integers, are equal when the describing THM, was published, the deepest and hardest lists are treated as bags (or multisets). That is, the theorem, yet verified in the logic, was the Unique Prime Fac- two lists have the same members and each member torization Theorem: has the same multiplicity in the two lists. Theorem 1. Every positive integer can be factored into Existence depends on the Proper Factor binary relation on a finite product of primes. Moreover, this product is unique the positive integers being well-founded. except for the order of the primes. Definition 1. Positive integer x is a factor (or divisor) of positive integer z just in case there is a positive integer y such that x · y = z. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for Definition 2. Positive integer x is a proper factor (or proper personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are divisor) of positive integer z just in case x is a factor of z not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies and 1 < x < z. bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific Thus, over the positive integers, there are no infinite chains permission and/or a fee. ACL2 ’06 Seattle, Washington USA of proper factors. Copyright 2006 ACL2 Steering Committee 0-9788493-0-2/06/08. Uniqueness depends on this key property of primes. Theorem 2. If prime p is a factor of the product of pos- Proof. If the domain contains only one element 0E, then itive integers a · b, then either p is a factor of a or p is a let 1E be 0E. factor of b. Otherwise the domain contains a nonzero element. Choose a nonzero domain element, b, of smallest possible Size. The standard proof of this key theorem employs the theory By the Division property, b divides every domain element of the greatest common divisor of two positive integers. The (because the remainder must be 0E). classical way to compute Greatest Common Divisors is by Let 1 be quot(b, b). Then b · 1 is b · quot(b, b) which use of the Euclidean Algorithm. E E E E is b (since the remainder is 0E). An ACL2 book, described in Appendix A, containing a For any domain element x, b · quot(x, b) = x. Therefore version of the original THM proof can be found in the file E prime-fac.lisp. An explicitly defined, but rather ineffi- 1E ·E x = 1E ·E (b ·E quot(x, b)) cient, function in this book can, of course, be executed and = (1E ·E b) ·E quot(x, b) actually produces prime factorizations of positive integers. = b ·E quot(x, b)) = x. 3. EUCLIDEAN DOMAINS An Euclidean Domain is a set E with two binary operations, Book 1, of many ACL2 Euclidean Domain books described +E and ·E, an unary operation, −E, and a set element 0E that satisfy these expected algebraic laws: For all X, Y, Z ∈ E, in Appendix A, in ed1.lisp formalizes and verifies this proof in ACL2. Closure. X +E Y ∈ E, X ·E Y ∈ E, −EX ∈ E, 0E ∈ E; Perhaps the most interesting step to translate into ACL2 is, “Choose a nonzero domain element, b, of smallest possible Commutative. X +E Y = Y +E X, X ·E Y = Y ·E X; Size.” In the ACL2 proof, defchoose is first used to choose a nonzero domain element (a) (assuming it exists). Then Associative. (X + Y ) + Z = X + (Y + Z), E E E E for every nonnegative integer n, defchoose is used to choose (X · Y ) · Z = X · (Y · Z); E E E E a nonzero domain element (b n) with Size n (if such an Distributive. X · (Y + Z) = (X · Y ) + (X · Z); element exists). Then at least one member of this finite list, E E E E E (b 0), (b 1), ..., (b (Size (a))), must be a nonzero domain element satisfying (equal (Size (b j) j)). The Identity. 0E +E X = X: first such list element must, in fact, be a nonzero domain Inverse. X +E (−EX) = 0E: element of smallest possible Size. Euclidean multiplication, ·E, behaves like integer multipli- 3.2 Well-founded Factors cation to the extent that it satisfies A proof, that, over nonzero Euclidean domain elements, there are no infinite chains of proper factors, is greatly sim- • if X · Y = 0 , then (X = 0 ∨ Y = 0 ). E E E E plified if this Multiplicative Size Property holds: These domains are called Euclidean because they come • Size(x) ≤ Size(x·Ey), for all nonzero domain elements equipped with enough additional structure to implement the x and y. Euclidean Algorithm for the computation of Greatest Com- Unfortunately, there are Euclidean domains (see the exam- mon Divisors. That is, Euclidean division, with quotients ple below) that do not satisfy this property. However, the and remainders, must be possible. Thus, there are two bi- next theorem shows there is no loss of generality in assum- nary functions, and , and an unary function, , quot rem Size ing the Multiplicative Size Property always holds in a given from into the nonnegative integers, that satisfy: For all E Euclidean domain. X, Y ∈ E, with Y 6= 0E, Theorem 4. If the Euclidean domain Closure. quot(X, Y ) ∈ E, rem(X, Y ) ∈ E: (E, +E, ·E, −E, 0E, 1E, quot1, rem1, Size1), Division Property. X = Y ·E quot(X, Y ) +E rem(X, Y ), does not satisfy the Multiplicative Size Property, then rem(X, Y ) = 0E ∨ Size(rem(X, Y )) < Size(Y ). “new” operations quot, rem, and Size can always be defined so that In ACL2, these properties are consistently axiomatized using ENCAPSULATE. In fact, the ACL2 axiomatization is (E, +E, ·E, −E, 0E, 1E, quot, rem, Size), slightly generalized by replacing = with an equivalence re- is an Euclidean domain that does satisfy the Multiplicative lation with the appropriate congruence properties. Size Property. 3.1 Multiplicative Identity Proof. If the domain contains only one element 0E, then the Multiplicative Size Property holds vacuously. Theorem 3. Every Euclidean Domain has a multiplica- Otherwise the domain contains a nonzero element. For tive identity. each nonzero domain element, x, choose a nonzero domain element c(x) such that Size1(x·E c(x)) is as small as possible. Define Thus, there always is a domain element, 1E, so that for any X ∈ , E Size(x) = Size1(x ·E c(x)) quot(x, y) = c(y) · quot (x, y · c(y)) 1E ·E X = X. E 1 E rem(x, y) = rem1(x, y ·E c(y)) Then the Division Property remains true of these “new” Book 2b, described in Appendix A, in ed2b.lisp verifies operations.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 7. Euclidean Domains Let R Be an Integral Domain. We Want to Find Natural Conditions on R Such That R Is a PID. Looking at the C
    7. Euclidean Domains Let R be an integral domain. We want to find natural conditions on R such that R is a PID. Looking at the case of the integers, it is clear that the key property is the division algorithm. Definition 7.1. Let R be an integral domain. We say that R is Eu- clidean, if there is a function d: R − f0g −! N [ f0g; which satisfies, for every pair of non-zero elements a and b of R, (1) d(a) ≤ d(ab): (2) There are elements q and r of R such that b = aq + r; where either r = 0 or d(r) < d(a). Example 7.2. The ring Z is a Euclidean domain. The function d is the absolute value. Definition 7.3. Let R be a ring and let f 2 R[x] be a polynomial with coefficients in R. The degree of f is the largest n such that the coefficient of xn is non-zero. Lemma 7.4. Let R be an integral domain and let f and g be two elements of R[x]. Then the degree of fg is the sum of the degrees of f and g. In particular R[x] is an integral domain. Proof. Suppose that f has degree m and g has degree n. If a is the leading coefficient of f and b is the leading coefficient of g then f = axm + ::: and f = bxn + :::; where ::: indicate lower degree terms then fg = (ab)xm+n + :::: As R is an integral domain, ab 6= 0, so that the degree of fg is m + n.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Algebra: Monoids, Groups, Rings
    Notes on Abstract Algebra John Perry University of Southern Mississippi [email protected] http://www.math.usm.edu/perry/ Copyright 2009 John Perry www.math.usm.edu/perry/ Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work • to Remix—to adapt the work Under• the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licen- • sor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Noncommercial—You may not use this work for commercial purposes. • Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the • resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. With the understanding that: Waiver—Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copy- • right holder. Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: • Your fair dealing or fair use rights; ◦ Apart from the remix rights granted under this license, the author’s moral rights; ◦ Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, ◦ such as publicity or privacy rights. Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of • this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/legalcode Table of Contents Reference sheet for notation...........................................................iv A few acknowledgements..............................................................vi Preface ...............................................................................vii Overview ...........................................................................vii Three interesting problems ............................................................1 Part .
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Integer Division – a Differentiated Offering from C2000 Product Family
    Application Report SPRACN6–July 2019 Fast Integer Division – A Differentiated Offering From C2000™ Product Family Prasanth Viswanathan Pillai, Himanshu Chaudhary, Aravindhan Karuppiah, Alex Tessarolo ABSTRACT This application report provides an overview of the different division and modulo (remainder) functions and its associated properties. Later, the document describes how the different division functions can be implemented using the C28x ISA and intrinsics supported by the compiler. Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 2 Different Division Functions ................................................................................................ 2 3 Intrinsic Support Through TI C2000 Compiler ........................................................................... 4 4 Cycle Count................................................................................................................... 6 5 Summary...................................................................................................................... 6 6 References ................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures 1 Truncated Division Function................................................................................................ 2 2 Floored Division Function................................................................................................... 3 3 Euclidean
    [Show full text]
  • Unit and Unitary Cayley Graphs for the Ring of Gaussian Integers Modulo N
    Quasigroups and Related Systems 25 (2017), 189 − 200 Unit and unitary Cayley graphs for the ring of Gaussian integers modulo n Ali Bahrami and Reza Jahani-Nezhad Abstract. Let [i] be the ring of Gaussian integers modulo n and G( [i]) and G be the Zn Zn Zn[i] unit graph and the unitary Cayley graph of Zn[i], respectively. In this paper, we study G(Zn[i]) and G . Among many results, it is shown that for each positive integer n, the graphs G( [i]) Zn[i] Zn and G are Hamiltonian. We also nd a necessary and sucient condition for the unit and Zn[i] unitary Cayley graphs of Zn[i] to be Eulerian. 1. Introduction Finding the relationship between the algebraic structure of rings using properties of graphs associated to them has become an interesting topic in the last years. There are many papers on assigning a graph to a ring, see [1], [3], [4], [5], [7], [6], [8], [10], [11], [12], [17], [19], and [20]. Let R be a commutative ring with non-zero identity. We denote by U(R), J(R) and Z(R) the group of units of R, the Jacobson radical of R and the set of zero divisors of R, respectively. The unitary Cayley graph of R, denoted by GR, is the graph whose vertex set is R, and in which fa; bg is an edge if and only if a − b 2 U(R). The unit graph G(R) of R is the simple graph whose vertices are elements of R and two distinct vertices a and b are adjacent if and only if a + b in U(R) .
    [Show full text]
  • Anthyphairesis, the ``Originary'' Core of the Concept of Fraction
    Anthyphairesis, the “originary” core of the concept of fraction Paolo Longoni, Gianstefano Riva, Ernesto Rottoli To cite this version: Paolo Longoni, Gianstefano Riva, Ernesto Rottoli. Anthyphairesis, the “originary” core of the concept of fraction. History and Pedagogy of Mathematics, Jul 2016, Montpellier, France. hal-01349271 HAL Id: hal-01349271 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01349271 Submitted on 27 Jul 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. ANTHYPHAIRESIS, THE “ORIGINARY” CORE OF THE CONCEPT OF FRACTION Paolo LONGONI, Gianstefano RIVA, Ernesto ROTTOLI Laboratorio didattico di matematica e filosofia. Presezzo, Bergamo, Italy [email protected] ABSTRACT In spite of efforts over decades, the results of teaching and learning fractions are not satisfactory. In response to this trouble, we have proposed a radical rethinking of the didactics of fractions, that begins with the third grade of primary school. In this presentation, we propose some historical reflections that underline the “originary” meaning of the concept of fraction. Our starting point is to retrace the anthyphairesis, in order to feel, at least partially, the “originary sensibility” that characterized the Pythagorean search. The walking step by step the concrete actions of this procedure of comparison of two homogeneous quantities, results in proposing that a process of mathematisation is the core of didactics of fractions.
    [Show full text]
  • NOTES on UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINS Alfonso Gracia-Saz, MAT 347
    Unique-factorization domains MAT 347 NOTES ON UNIQUE FACTORIZATION DOMAINS Alfonso Gracia-Saz, MAT 347 Note: These notes summarize the approach I will take to Chapter 8. You are welcome to read Chapter 8 in the book instead, which simply uses a different order, and goes in slightly different depth at different points. If you read the book, notice that I will skip any references to universal side divisors and Dedekind-Hasse norms. If you find any typos or mistakes, please let me know. These notes complement, but do not replace lectures. Last updated on January 21, 2016. Note 1. Through this paper, we will assume that all our rings are integral domains. R will always denote an integral domains, even if we don't say it each time. Motivation: We know that every integer number is the product of prime numbers in a unique way. Sort of. We just believed our kindergarden teacher when she told us, and we omitted the fact that it needed to be proven. We want to prove that this is true, that something similar is true in the ring of polynomials over a field. More generally, in which domains is this true? In which domains does this fail? 1 Unique-factorization domains In this section we want to define what it means that \every" element can be written as product of \primes" in a \unique" way (as we normally think of the integers), and we want to see some examples where this fails. It will take us a few definitions. Definition 2. Let a; b 2 R.
    [Show full text]
  • Euclidean Quadratic Forms and Adc-Forms: I
    EUCLIDEAN QUADRATIC FORMS AND ADC-FORMS: I PETE L. CLARK We denote by N the non-negative integers (including 0). Throughout R will denote a commutative, unital integral domain and K its fraction • field. We write R for R n f0g and ΣR for the set of height one primes of R. If M and N are monoids (written multiplicatively, with identity element 1), a monoid homomorphism f : M ! N is nondegenerate if f(x) = 1 () x = 1. Introduction The goal of this work is to set up the foundations and begin the systematic arith- metic study of certain classes of quadratic forms over a fairly general class of integral domains. Our work here is concentrated around that of two definitions, that of Eu- clidean form and ADC form. These definitions have a classical flavor, and various special cases of them can be found (most often implicitly) in the literature. Our work was particularly motivated by the similarities between two classical theorems. × Theorem 1. (Aubry, Davenport-Cassels) LetP A = (aij) be a symmetric n n Z matrix with coefficients in , and let q(x) = 1≤i;j≤n aijxixj be a positive definite integral quadratic form. Suppose that for all x 2 Qn, there exists y 2 Zn such that q(x − y) < 1. Then if d 2 Z is such that there exists x 2 Qn with q(x) = d, there exists y 2 Zn such that q(y) = d. 2 2 2 Consider q(x) = x1 + x2 + x3. It satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem: approxi- mating a vector x 2 Q3 by a vector y 2 Z3 of nearest integer entries, we get 3 (x − y )2 + (x − y )2 + (x − y )2 ≤ < 1: 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 Thus Theorem 1 shows that every integer which is the sum of three rational squares is also the sum of three integral squares.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IX.46. Euclidean Domains
    IX.46. Euclidean Domains 1 Section IX.46. Euclidean Domains Note. Fraleigh comments at the beginning of this section: “Now a modern tech- nique of mathematics is to take some clearly related situations and try to bring them under one roof by abstracting the important ideas common to them.” In this section, we take the idea of the division algorithm for integral domain Z and generalize it to other integral domains. Note. Recall: 1. Division Algorithm for Z (Theorem 6.3). If m is a positive integer and n is any integer, then there exist unique integers q and r such that n = mq + r and 0 ≤ r < m. 2. Division Algorithm for [x] (Theorem 23.1). n n−1 Let F be a field and let f(x)= anx + an−1x + ··· + a1x + a0 and g(x)= n m−1 bnx + bm−1x + ···+ b1x + b0 be two elements of F [x], with an and bm both nonzero elements of F and m > 0. Then there are unique polynomials q(x) and r(x) in F [x] such that f(x) = g(x)q(x)+ r(x), where either r(x)=0or the degree of r(x) is less than the degree m of g(x). Note. We now introduce a function which maps an integral domain into the nonnegative integers and use the values of this function to replace the ideas of “remainder” in Z and “degree” in F [x]. IX.46. Euclidean Domains 2 Definition 46.1. A Euclidean norm on an integral domain D is a function v mapping the nonzero elements of D into the nonnegative integers such that the following conditions are satisfied: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Abstract Algebra “Rings First”
    Introduction to Abstract Algebra \Rings First" Bruno Benedetti University of Miami January 2020 Abstract The main purpose of these notes is to understand what Z; Q; R; C are, as well as their polynomial rings. Contents 0 Preliminaries 4 0.1 Injective and Surjective Functions..........................4 0.2 Natural numbers, induction, and Euclid's theorem.................6 0.3 The Euclidean Algorithm and Diophantine Equations............... 12 0.4 From Z and Q to R: The need for geometry..................... 18 0.5 Modular Arithmetics and Divisibility Criteria.................... 23 0.6 *Fermat's little theorem and decimal representation................ 28 0.7 Exercises........................................ 31 1 C-Rings, Fields and Domains 33 1.1 Invertible elements and Fields............................. 34 1.2 Zerodivisors and Domains............................... 36 1.3 Nilpotent elements and reduced C-rings....................... 39 1.4 *Gaussian Integers................................... 39 1.5 Exercises........................................ 41 2 Polynomials 43 2.1 Degree of a polynomial................................. 44 2.2 Euclidean division................................... 46 2.3 Complex conjugation.................................. 50 2.4 Symmetric Polynomials................................ 52 2.5 Exercises........................................ 56 3 Subrings, Homomorphisms, Ideals 57 3.1 Subrings......................................... 57 3.2 Homomorphisms.................................... 58 3.3 Ideals.........................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Binary Recursive Gcd Algorithm
    A Binary Recursive Gcd Algorithm Damien Stehle´ and Paul Zimmermann LORIA/INRIA Lorraine, 615 rue du jardin botanique, BP 101, F-54602 Villers-l`es-Nancy, France, fstehle,[email protected] Abstract. The binary algorithm is a variant of the Euclidean algorithm that performs well in practice. We present a quasi-linear time recursive algorithm that computes the greatest common divisor of two integers by simulating a slightly modified version of the binary algorithm. The structure of our algorithm is very close to the one of the well-known Knuth-Sch¨onhage fast gcd algorithm; although it does not improve on its O(M(n) log n) complexity, the description and the proof of correctness are significantly simpler in our case. This leads to a simplification of the implementation and to better running times. 1 Introduction Gcd computation is a central task in computer algebra, in particular when com- puting over rational numbers or over modular integers. The well-known Eu- clidean algorithm solves this problem in time quadratic in the size n of the inputs. This algorithm has been extensively studied and analyzed over the past decades. We refer to the very complete average complexity analysis of Vall´ee for a large family of gcd algorithms, see [10]. The first quasi-linear algorithm for the integer gcd was proposed by Knuth in 1970, see [4]: he showed how to calculate the gcd of two n-bit integers in time O(n log5 n log log n). The complexity of this algorithm was improved by Sch¨onhage [6] to O(n log2 n log log n).
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Algebra's Basic Concepts
    Algebraic Terminology UCSD Math 15A, CSE 20 (S. Gill Williamson) Contents > Semigroup @ ? Monoid A @ Group A A Ring and Field A B Ideal B C Integral domain C D Euclidean domain D E Module E F Vector space and algebra E >= Notational conventions F > Semigroup We use the notation = 1; 2;:::; for the positive integers. Let 0 = 0 1 2 denote the nonnegative integers, and let 0 ±1 ±2 de- ; ; ;:::; { } = ; ; ;::: note the set of all integers. Let × n ( -fold Cartesian product of ) be the set { } S n { S } of n-tuples from a nonempty set S. We also write Sn for this product. Semigroup!Monoid!Group: a set with one binary operation A function w : S2 ! S is called a binary operation. It is sometimes useful to write w(x; y) in a simpler form such as x w y or simply x · y or even just x y. To tie the binary operation w to S explicitly, we write (S; w) or (S; ·). DeVnition >.> (Semigroup). Let (S; ·) be a nonempty set S with a binary oper- ation “·” . If (x · y) · z = x · (y · z), for all x, y, z 2 S, then the binary operation “·” is called associative and (S; ·) is called a semigroup. If two elements, s; t 2 S satisfy s · t = t · s then we say s and t commute. If for all x; y 2 S we have x · y = y · x then (S; ·) is a commutative (or abelian) semigroup. Remark >.? (Semigroup). Let S = M2;2(e) be the set of 2 × 2 matrices with en- tries in e = 0; ±2; ±4;::: , the set of even integers.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Stability of Euclidean Algorithm Over Ultrametric Fields
    Xavier CARUSO Numerical stability of Euclidean algorithm over ultrametric fields Tome 29, no 2 (2017), p. 503-534. <http://jtnb.cedram.org/item?id=JTNB_2017__29_2_503_0> © Société Arithmétique de Bordeaux, 2017, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux articles de la revue « Journal de Théorie des Nom- bres de Bordeaux » (http://jtnb.cedram.org/), implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://jtnb.cedram. org/legal/). Toute reproduction en tout ou partie de cet article sous quelque forme que ce soit pour tout usage autre que l’utilisation à fin strictement personnelle du copiste est constitutive d’une infrac- tion pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. cedram Article mis en ligne dans le cadre du Centre de diffusion des revues académiques de mathématiques http://www.cedram.org/ Journal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux 29 (2017), 503–534 Numerical stability of Euclidean algorithm over ultrametric fields par Xavier CARUSO Résumé. Nous étudions le problème de la stabilité du calcul des résultants et sous-résultants des polynômes définis sur des an- neaux de valuation discrète complets (e.g. Zp ou k[[t]] où k est un corps). Nous démontrons que les algorithmes de type Euclide sont très instables en moyenne et, dans de nombreux cas, nous ex- pliquons comment les rendre stables sans dégrader la complexité. Chemin faisant, nous déterminons la loi de la valuation des sous- résultants de deux polynômes p-adiques aléatoires unitaires de même degré. Abstract. We address the problem of the stability of the com- putations of resultants and subresultants of polynomials defined over complete discrete valuation rings (e.g.
    [Show full text]