my first question! I work a lot with numbers (finance) but very much an amateur mathematician - please be gentle. I have the following problem that has come from discussions about cryptography:

Given a set of prime numbers $p_1, p_2,...,p_n$ and sets $S_{p_1},S_{p_2},..., S_{p_n}$ containing a selection of modular residue classes with respect to each prime, find the smallest positive integer $q$ that is congruent to a residue class in each $S_i, i = 1,...,n$.


$p_1 = 7$, $p_2 = 11$, $p_3 = 13 $

$S_1 = \{[0]_7,[1]_7,[6]_7\}$

$S_2 = \{[1]_{11},[5]_{11},[6]_{11},[10]_{11}\}$

$S_3 = \{[2]_{13},[5]_{13},[8]_{13},[11]_{13}\}$

By the Chinese Remainder Theorem (CRT) there will always be a solution if the $S_i$s are non-empty. A brute force approach is to take all combinations of elements from the $S_i$s, apply the CRT to each one in turn and keep track of the smallest.

For example, if we take the first elements from each of the sets above, we can use CRT to solve the following system of equations for q: $$ q \equiv 0 \mod 7 \\ q \equiv 1 \mod 11 \\ q \equiv 2 \mod 13 $$

In this case q = 210.

Repeating this process for all the other combinations, we can establish that the smallest possible q is actually 21 ( $\equiv [0]_7 \equiv [10]_{11} \equiv [8]_{13} $)

Of course, this is fine to do when the number of primes and the size of the $S_i$s is small, but blows up quite quickly if they get larger. I'm interested in establishing whether a better algorithm could do this more efficiently and ultimately what is the complexity of this problem in a computational sense.

Any smart ideas? Literature recommendations or theorems in particular that might point me in the right direction would be most appreciated!

Edit: @Yong Hao Ng gives a good improvement on brute force in his answer below, but I think the problem still blows up subexponentially as the number of primes grows, assuming that the number of residue classes for each prime p is roughly p/2. I'm wondering if that's anyone who can improve on this, or indeed suggest why you can't improve on this!

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Look up the Extended Euclidean algorithm $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Jan 10 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, I am familiar with the extended euclidean algorithm but the useful application here is not obvious to me.. which probably says more about me than your suggestion! Can you elaborate? $\endgroup$ – JMP Jan 10 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ The Chinese Remainder Theorem section on using the existence construction gives a sketch of the algorithm $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Jan 10 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ thanks. to clarify, I'm not struggling to apply the CRT to the system of equations (which indeed requires extended euclid/modular inverses) for any given combination of residues. My question is whether there is a smarter way to find the minimum solution without applying CRT to all the possible combinations of residues given the restrictions in the problem. $\endgroup$ – JMP Jan 10 at 16:34

Edit: serious flaw with previous algorithm. Improved algorithm to cater to sparse solutions, which are more common for large data sets.

Split the primes into $P_1$ and $P_2$ such that the number of residue classes are as close as possible. Let $Q_1,Q_2$ be the product of primes in $P_1$ and $P_2$ respectively.

First we compute the residue classes $R_1$ and $R_2$ of $P_1$ and $P_2$ respectively. We extend $R_1$ to also satisfy $\equiv 0\pmod{Q_2}$ and call it $S_1$. i.e. each $s_1\in S_1$ satisfies $$ \begin{align} s_1\pmod{Q_1} &\in R_1\\ s_1 &\equiv 0 \pmod{Q_2} \end{align} $$ Similarly, we extend $R_2$ to also satisfy $\equiv 0 \pmod{Q_1}$. So each $s_2\in S_2$ satisfies $$ \begin{align} s_2 &\equiv 0 \pmod{Q_1}\\ s_2 \pmod{Q_2} &\in R_2 \end{align} $$ Therefore $S_1,S_2$ are CRTs $\pmod{Q_1Q_2}$, the full composite.

Now consider all the different sums $$ m = s_1+s_2 \pmod{Q_1Q_2},\quad s_1\in S_1, s_2\in S_2 $$ Taking $\pmod {Q_1}$, since $s_2\equiv 0 \pmod{Q_1}$ we have $$ m \equiv s_1 \pmod{Q_1} \in R_1 $$ Similarly, taking $\pmod{Q_2}$, since $s_1\equiv 0 \pmod{Q_2}$ we have $$ m \equiv s_2 \pmod{Q_2} \in R_2 $$ Therefore the $m$ constructed in this way is exactly all the residue classes $\pmod{Q_1Q_2}$ of the original problem.

This means it suffices to find the smallest $m \pmod{Q_1Q_2}$ possible. Since $0\leq s_1,s_2< Q_1Q_2$, this is either the sum of the smallest $s_1$ and $s_2$, or a sum of $s_1,s_2$ is just a bit more than $Q_1Q_2$.

Let $S_1$ and $S_2$ be sorted. To find the smallest for the latter type, we start with the largest $s_1$ and find the smallest $s_2$ such that $s_1+s_2\geq Q_1Q_2$. Now we iteratively move to a smaller $s_1$, at each step if the new $s_1$ causes $s_1+s_2< Q_1Q_2$ then we also move $s_2$ to a larger one until $s_1+s_2\geq Q_1Q_2$. It can be seen that this traverse $S_1,S_2$ exactly once.

For the overall complexity analysis, suppose for simplicity that $R_1,R_2$ each has $\approx m$ classes, so $2m$ CRTs computed. Then the bruteforce method would compute $2m + m^2\approx m^2$ CRTs.

This method would require $2m$ CRTs for constructing $S_1$ and $S_2$. It then requires $2m$ (modulo) sums to check for all the $m=s_1+s_2$.

Assuming that CRT is more costly than the modulo sums, the complexity roughly drops from $m^2$ CRTs to $2m$ CRTs.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks, this is a really thoughtful answer, and in fact is similar to what I have been coming up with (although you got there much faster!), however $R_1$ and $R_2$ grow very quickly (I think subexponentially, assuming number of residue classes for each prime p is roughly p/2 ) as the number of primes increases. I am wondering if there's anywhere to better subdivide the problem or tackle it more analytically. $\endgroup$ – JMP Jan 11 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JMP It might be easy if the density of the candidates is very high. Then chances are the solution is in $[0, m)$ for some small $m$ and we can specifically target that region. However I guess in practice it's much more likely to be rather sparse. For your example the density is 1/2 per prime, so if you have $k$ primes of size $m$ the solution is quite likely to be around $m^k / (m/2)^k = 2^k$. So even if you have 30 primes this is just a search of up to $2^{30}$. $\endgroup$ – Yong Hao Ng Jan 11 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ Supposing the density was roughly p/2, but that somehow you did know that the solution was in [0,m), does this really change the problem? Is it, as you say, possible to "specifically target that region"? As I see it, finding a global minimum is hard precisely because you can't bound the solution when working with different moduli. $\endgroup$ – JMP Jan 13 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ @JMP The basic idea I was thinking about is to directly check whether the solution is $x=1,x=2,\dots,x=m$. For each $x$ we try, to see whether it is valid for one prime ${p_i}$ it suffices to check if $x\pmod {p_i}$ is in $S_i$, so just $k$ modulo reductions and $k$ binary searches. This method would be terrible if the expected range $[0,m)$ is large though. $\endgroup$ – Yong Hao Ng Jan 14 at 2:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.