Why isn't Montgomery modular exponentiation considered for use in quantum factoring? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-25T04:16:33Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/46256http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/46256/why-isnt-montgomery-modular-exponentiation-considered-for-use-in-quantum-factoriWhy isn't Montgomery modular exponentiation considered for use in quantum factoring?Steve Huntsman2010-11-16T16:44:41Z2010-11-19T16:00:07Z
<p>It is well known that modular exponentiation (the main part of an RSA operation) is computationally expensive, and as far as I understand things the technique of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_reduction#Modular_exponentiation" rel="nofollow">Montgomery modular exponentiation</a> is the preferred method. Modular exponentiation is also prominently featured in the quantum factoring algorithm, and it is expensive there as well. </p>
<p><strong>So: why isn't Montgomery modular exponentiation apparently present in current detailed subroutines for quantum factoring?</strong></p>
<p>The only thing I can imagine is that there's a high qubit overhead for some non-obvious reason.</p>
<p>Running <em>montgomery quantum "modular exponentiation"</em> through Google Scholar yields no useful results. I am aware of work by Van Meter and others on quantum addition and modular exponentiation, but examining their references (I have yet to read this work) shows no indication that Montgomery methods are considered there.</p>
<p>The single <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14809499008269761518" rel="nofollow">reference</a> I have found that appears to discuss this is in Japanese, which lamentably I cannot read, though apparently it is from a 2002 conference proceedings. A machine translation yields nuggets appended below that indicate there might be something useful. However, I can't find any indication that this has been followed up, which makes me think that the idea has been a) considered and then b) discarded.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Quantum circuit in performing
arithmetic Noboru Kunihiro</p>
<p>...In this study, but requires
relatively large qubit, we propose a
modular exponentiation circuit quantum
computation time is short. Montgomery
Reduction [8] and right binary method
[9] Combined, they constitute a
circuit Ru. Reduction Montgomery is, m
randomly chosen as a natural number,
mod 2m by the operation, perform the
remainder operation If, mod n
operations in eliminating. This will
lead to reduction of computation
time...</p>
<p>Application of 3.2 Montgomery
Reduction Montgomery Reduction [8] is
formulated as follows...This algorithm
can return the correct values can be
easily confirmed. M R (Y) he asks for
a law 2m Polynomials with 2m points
are important and only requires
division by. In addition, Montgomery
Reduction in, there are different
calculation methods....In general,
Reduction Montgomery is not one-to-one
function...</p>
<p>...The proposed method uses a right
binary method, Montgomery Reducton has
a feature that is adopted. Than the
conventional method, characterized by
a small component of the circuit Have.
qubit fault that is required to have a
lot of expectations can be computed in
less computational time Be. The
future, Montgomery Reduction and
control circuitry specifically NOT
described by the qubit really needed
Evaluate the number is expected to
evaluate the computation time. In
addition, each taking advantage of
research findings, more than modular
exponentiation Non-arithmetic (Euclid
mutual division, etc.) also with
respect to the planned configuration
of an efficient quantum circuit.</p>
<p>...[8] PL Montgomery, "Modular
Multiplication Without Trial
Division," Mathematics of Computation, 44, 170, pp. 519-521, 1985...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>[This is a <a href="http://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/3053/" rel="nofollow">crosspost from cstheory</a>: it doesn't seem to be getting much attention there.]</p>