Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • The following content is provided under a Creative

  • Commons license.

  • Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare

  • continue to offer high quality educational resources for free.

  • To make a donation or view additional materials

  • from hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare

  • at ocw.mit.edu.

  • PROFESSOR: So let's get ready.

  • If good, you should receive some handouts.

  • So the TAs are walking around, so you should slowly get those.

  • This is the second lecture on number theory,

  • and we're going to cover for a lot of stuff.

  • And actually, we're going to start

  • with encryption, which is an application of number theory.

  • And we'll take that as a theme throughout the whole lecture.

  • And so, in this way, you can see how useful number theory is.

  • Now, encryption-- yeah, what is it?

  • So let's first talk about it a little bit.

  • Maybe some of you have heard about it.

  • Cryptology in general is the art of hiding information.

  • And encryption is a very useful tool.

  • I'll only give a very high level overview.

  • I mean, if you really want to know more about this,

  • you should do a class in crypto, or practical security.

  • So what's encryption?

  • The idea is usually that, beforehand, we're

  • going to share a whole bunch of keys.

  • So keys are exchanged between a receiver and a sender.

  • And the whole idea is that if I want to transmit, like,

  • a message to one of you, well, there

  • could be someone in the middle who

  • wants to intercept my message, and wants

  • to find out what I'm saying.

  • So I do not like this.

  • And in order to avoid it, I will use encryption,

  • which is some kind of algorithm that actually transforms

  • my message m-- my plain message-- by using

  • some kind of algorithm, E. Some encryption algorithm--

  • it can be a function as well-- that uses the keys

  • in order to transform this into an encryption, which

  • we call m prime here.

  • So the plain text is, in the clear, all the information

  • that I want to convey to one of you, for example.

  • And m prime is somehow a complete-- well,

  • a mixture of bits, out of which I'm not

  • able to distill any information about the plain text.

  • So encryption to a very special kind of thing.

  • We're not going to talk about the precise definitions here,

  • but we just take the ID into this lecture.

  • Now, decryption is transforming the cypher text back

  • into the plain text.

  • So we will start with the encryption, m prime,

  • and we have some kind of decryption algorithm.

  • And again, we can make use of the keys we exchanged.

  • And we transform it back into the plain message.

  • So only if I know the keys, I can actually

  • transform back the encrypted version into the plain version.

  • So in encryption schemes we like both these algorithms

  • to be is really efficient.

  • And the security of such a scheme-- well, the first kind

  • of intuition that we can get is well,

  • if I'm a man in the middle somewhere,

  • intercepting an encrypted message-- m prime--

  • I should not be able to get any information about m

  • if I have no knowledge about those keys.

  • So this is the example that we're

  • going to take throughout this whole lecture.

  • So let's start with a first possible scheme.

  • Turing, who lived around 1936-- he was 24 years old--

  • and he lived to about-- actually,

  • I think he was about 54 when he died.

  • In any case, Turing was the one who first originally proposed

  • to use number theory in cryptography.

  • And before he joined the British army, before the Second World

  • War, he actually proposed a scheme,

  • but it got never published.

  • So here in this class, we are going

  • to try to think about what he could have thought about.

  • So we will have a first scheme, which

  • we will call Turing's code, version number one.

  • And the whole idea is that we're going

  • to translate a message first of all into a prime number,

  • because we want to use numbers.

  • We're here in number theory class,

  • so we want to use some tricks with numbers in order

  • to encrypt it.

  • So let's do this.

  • So for example, let's take the word victory.

  • We can map this into an integer.

  • For example, we could say, well, m is 22,

  • where I map V to-- because I know

  • V is the 22nd letter in the alphabet, I just start with 22.

  • I is the ninth letter in the alphabet, so I append 09.

  • C is the third letter in the alphabet, I append 3-- 03.

  • I continue like this and in end, over here

  • I've mapped Y to the 25th letter.

  • Because it's the 25th letter of alphabet, I write 25.

  • It turns out, I can just add a couple of digits

  • more, if I specially compute those.

  • In this case, I could add 13, and then it

  • changes into a prime number.

  • Now we are not going to talk about why this is,

  • and how this can be done, and so on.

  • But it turns out that the prime numbers are densely

  • distributed over the integers, and it's really possible to,

  • just with a few extra digits-- by selecting them

  • in a smart way-- to actually create a prime number.

  • And also verify that it is a prime number very efficiently.

  • So it's very easy to compute-- to translate such a word

  • into a prime number.

  • So this is how it all starts.

  • And just like in an encryption scheme,

  • beforehand we are going to exchange a key.

  • So we exchange the secret prime in this example,

  • which we call k.

  • And the encryption is very simple.

  • We are just going to multiply m with k.

  • Now, you may wonder why this is such a fantastic idea.

  • But let's just bear with me.

  • So m is this first prime number, and we multiply it

  • by a second prime number, and that's

  • going to be our encryption.

  • Now how do we decrypt?

  • That seems to be pretty straightforward, right?

  • How do we do it?

  • We start off with m prime.

  • I know we have exchanged this secret prime k,

  • so if I receive from you this message--

  • this encrypted message-- well, I know the key, k.

  • So I just divide it by k.

  • Well, which is m k divided k, and I get m.

  • So that's pretty straightforward.

  • Now, as it turns out actually-- and I'll write it up here,

  • because we need it later-- that it's not so trivial to actually

  • just give an m prime to figure out what m is, or k.

  • m prime is a product of two very large prime numbers,

  • and that turns out to be a really hard problem.

  • Up to now, nobody has really been

  • able to get a really efficient algorithm to solve that.

  • So we may think this is secure.

  • So let me write it down It's hard to factor

  • a product of two large primes.

  • You will actually need this also,

  • when we come to the final encryption scheme-- RSA

  • that we will discuss, which is widely used.

  • But something is wrong here, though.

  • This seems to be too simple, right?

  • So what can we do if we have like, say,

  • suppose I intercept two encrypted messages.

  • What can I do?

  • So suppose I have a first message, m

  • prime 1, which is the product of a first plain message

  • times the key, k.

  • And I have a second message that is

  • encrypted by using the same key, which is m 2 times k.

  • Does anybody have an idea what I could do here?

  • AUDIENCE: Find the GCD and that would give you the key.

  • PROFESSOR: Yeah, you could find the GCD

  • of m 1 prime and m 2 prime.

  • I've intercepted those two.

  • Now, m 1 is a prime number.

  • k is prime number, and 2 is a prime number.

  • k is a prime number here, also, right?

  • So they're all relatively prime towards one another.

  • The GCD of these two-- well, the greatest common divisor is k.

  • So just by calculating the GCD of the two encrypted messages,

  • I'll be able to figure out what k is-- the key.

  • Well, if I know the key, then I can

  • do the decryption of any cypher text,

  • any encryption of a message that I can intercept.

  • So this is not secure.

  • So how can we change this?

  • Can we create a different kind of encryption scheme?

  • Let's do something much more difficult,

  • and then we will get into modular arithmetic and things

  • like that.

  • So let's do this.

  • So Turing's code, version number two--

  • we try to do something much more complicated than just

  • multiplying by prime.

  • So let's do the following.

  • So beforehand, we're going to exchange not only

  • a secret prime k, but we will also exchange a public prime.

  • So we exchange-- by public we mean that anybody

  • can see this prime.

  • It's common knowledge.

  • A public prime p, and also a secret prime k.

  • Let's see whether this would work.

  • We have encryption.

  • Well, we're going to start out exactly the same way.

  • First of all, I should tell you how a message is represented.

  • The message is going to be represented as a number, m,

  • in the range from 0, 1, all the way to p minus 1.

  • And we will compute the encryption as follows.

  • m is going to be the remainder of m times k,

  • after dividing out as many multiples of p as possible.

  • So notice we do kind of the same thing.

  • We just multiply by k, but now we

  • just take the remainder after taking out

  • as many multiples of p.

  • Well, let's see whether we can do the decryption.

  • It seems to be, like, a next level of complexity.

  • So maybe that'll help us here, right?

  • So how will we do decryption?

  • Well, somehow we would like to divide by k.

  • But we cannot really do that, right?

  • This does not make any sense.

  • So the decryption-- we have no idea at this point

  • how to do this.

  • And now we can get into modular arithmetic,

  • because it turns out that we can sort of divide by k.

  • There exists what we call multiplicative inverse

  • of k modulo p.

  • And I will explain all those terminologies to you.

  • And then we will be able to take m prime,

  • and transform it back to m.

  • So we will be able to get a lot of this machinery going.

  • So let's find out how this works.

  • So first of all, last time we saw that we defined a and b

  • to be relatively prime.

  • So let me repeat that.

  • So a and b are relatively prime if and only

  • if-- that's how we define it-- if the GCD of a and b

  • is equal to 1.

  • And in last lecture and in the recitation,

  • you got a different proof, I think.

  • And we proved that, actually, the GCD of a and b

  • is equal to the smallest positive linear combination

  • of a and b.

  • So that means that one, in particular,

  • is a linear combination of a and b.

  • So there exists integers-- s and t--

  • such that s times a, plus t times b equals 1.

  • It turns out that it can also go the other way around,

  • because if I can write one as a linear combination of a b,

  • well I cannot get much lower than that, right?

  • So that's really the smallest possible that I can achieve.

  • So the GCD must be equal to 1.

  • So this is a property that we will be using.

  • And from this property, we can already figure out

  • an interesting property.

  • So suppose we have a linear combination that

  • looks like this.

  • Then you can imagine that, sort of,

  • that s times a is equal to 1, plus or minus

  • some linear multiple of b.

  • So it's sort of-- s times a is sort of equal to 1,

  • you can say, up to a multiple of b.

  • So you can see a sort of as an inverse of s.

  • Because s times a is equal to one, sort of.

  • So this is what we're going to use-- this kind of feeling.

  • And in order to do that, we are going to define congruency.

  • So that's the first definition for this lecture.

  • We say x is congruent to y modulo n,

  • if-- which we denote as follows-- x with three bars,

  • y in between brackets, mod n.

  • And we say that this is the case if n divides

  • the difference between x and y.

  • So let's have a look at some examples.

  • So let's take 31, and I would like

  • to show to you that this is congruent to 16

  • modulo, between brackets, 5.

  • Why is this?

  • Well, I take the difference between 31 and 16, which is 15,

  • and I know that 15 is 3 times 5, so 5 divides this difference.

  • And then by definition, we can write it like this.

  • And we say-- that's the definition--

  • 31 is congruent to 16 modulo 5.

  • Another example is-- no, we will stick with this example.

  • It's pretty clear.

  • So once we have defined this, we can continue and talk

  • about this inverse that I was talking about.

  • So we like to, sort of, explain in this encryption scheme

  • how we can divide by k.

  • Actually, we would like to multiply by an inverse of k.

  • And we're going to use this framework.

  • So we'll have a new definition that

  • talks about the multiplicative inverse.

  • So it's a new concept.

  • And you'll give a couple of examples.

  • So the multiplicative inverse of x modulo n

  • is a number, which we denote by x and then minus 1

  • on top of here.

  • It's a number in the interval 0, 1, all the way up to n minus 1.

  • Such that x times x inverse-- so x

  • times its multiplicative inverse--

  • is congruent to 1 modulo n.

  • So this is the definition for a multiplicative inverse.

  • So let's have some examples.

  • So let's do that over here.

  • For example, we have that 2 times 3-- which equals 6--

  • is equal to 1 modulo 5.

  • Why is this?

  • Well, 6 minus 1 is divisible by 5,

  • so I know is congruent to 1 modulo 5.

  • So what does this mean?

  • Well, we can say that two is actually

  • equal to the multiplicative inverse of 3 modulo 5.

  • We can also say that write 3 is the multiplicative inverse

  • of 2 modulo 5.

  • Let's have another example, just to make it a little bit more

  • clear.

  • We know that 5 times 5 equals 25,

  • and this is congruent to 1 modulo

  • 6, because 25 is 1 plus 4 times 6.

  • So now we see something funny happening,

  • because 5 is actually equal to its own multiplicative inverse

  • modulo 6.

  • So are there any questions about these concepts?

  • Because these are really basic for the whole lecture,

  • and this is what you really need to understand if you do

  • all the problem sets as well.

  • Are there any questions?

  • So now we can actually start talking

  • about this second version of the Turing code that we invented.

  • Let's have a look at this remainder.

  • So let's write it out again.

  • The remainder of m times k, after dividing out

  • as many multiples of p.

  • Well, we know that this is congruent to m times k modulo

  • p.

  • So why is this?

  • Well, we just apply the definition over here.

  • We take the difference between those two.

  • So here we have the remainder of m times k,

  • after dividing out as many multiples of p.

  • And if you subtract that from m times k,

  • well then we have something that is a multiple of p,

  • because that's what we divided out.

  • So the difference is a multiple of p,

  • so that means that p divides the difference.

  • And that's the definition of saying that this remainder is

  • congruent m k modulo p.

  • So this is kind of interesting, because now we

  • can rewrite over there-- well, not really rewrite,

  • but we can use this to analyze the encryption over here.

  • So m prime is equal to this remainder.

  • And we get a beautifully equation.

  • We see that the encryption is congruent to the plain message,

  • times the key modulo p.

  • So how do I do decryption?

  • I can use the multiplicative inverse of k, right?

  • So then I can divide k out.

  • So let's write this out as well.

  • So suppose I have a multiplicative inverse--

  • k to the power minus 1-- that is congruent to 1 modulo p.

  • Why do I do this?

  • Why am I writing this out?

  • Because you will see that it is not always

  • possible to have a multiplicative inverse.

  • That's going to be really a big problem.

  • And that's where all these other functions

  • come in-- the Euler totient function and Euler's theorem,

  • and so on.

  • So it's not really always the case.

  • We'll give an example in a moment.

  • But suppose that we have a multiplicative inverse-- modulo

  • p-- well, then I'm able to easily compute.

  • I take m prime, I multiply it with k inverse.

  • Well, I'm substituting for m prime, m times k-- times

  • k inverse.

  • I still have this left.

  • Now I can say that this is equal to 1 modulo p.

  • So this is equal, or is congruent, to m modulo p.

  • So now we see how we can do decryption.

  • We simply use the multiplicative inverse of k.

  • And as in the first Turing code, we

  • are able to somehow divide out-- so where

  • did I have it-- to divide out k.

  • I did it very differently-- I have a very different

  • mathematical structure-- but the idea is, essentially, the same.

  • I have a multiplicative inverse of k,

  • and if I multiply this with the encryption,

  • I will get the plain message, modulo p.

  • So, am I finished now is the question.

  • Well, I know that m is in the range of 0, 1, all the way up

  • to p minus 1.

  • So this means that I can also rewrite m as--

  • and I use a similar trick as what I did over here--

  • I can rewrite m as they remainder of m prime times k

  • inverse, after dividing out as many copies of p as possible.

  • So what we did here is to first prove

  • that the difference between those two is a multiple of p.

  • That's essentially what congruent modulo p

  • means-- that's the definition.

  • So now that I know that the difference is a multiple of p,

  • and if I know that m is actually in this range up to p minus 1,

  • I can use what we learned last lecture--

  • and what the book was talking about-- that the definition

  • of the remainder of m prime times k inverse-- this thing--

  • after finding out as many copies of p,

  • is exactly this plain message m.

  • OK, so now we the decryption.

  • So this is decryption.

  • And that sounds great.

  • So now, of course, we are wondering, well,

  • if we can do this, can we also attack this scheme, right?

  • Can we do something bad with it?

  • Well, it can be used to break this code,

  • but in a slightly more complicated way.

  • So let's see where I put that.

  • Right, so what we are going to use, now-- so when

  • we talk about security, and so on,

  • you can think of all kinds of ways

  • to break an encryption scheme.

  • So we started out with, in the first version,

  • well, what if I just know the encryption?

  • And then, well, I cannot know anything about the plain text,

  • simply because I know that it's very hard to factor a product

  • of two large primes.

  • Then I said, but suppose I know a little bit more

  • as an adversary.

  • Suppose I have a plain message together

  • with an encrypted message.

  • Well, then I could do this GCD trick

  • and figure out and break the scheme.

  • And now we're going to do something similar.

  • And we say, well, suppose that I do not know two encryptions,

  • but I know a plain message.

  • And in corresponding, encrypted message.

  • So if I know such a pair, which is-- I mean, in practice,

  • such type of information will be leaked.

  • Then in this case, I can break it.

  • So we call this the known the plain text attack.

  • And it assumes that we know-- as an adversary,

  • I know a message-- a plain message, m-- and also

  • an encryption of this message, m prime.

  • And m prime, according to this scheme,

  • is the remainder of m times k, after the dividing out

  • as many multiples of p as possible.

  • Now, we saw-- now, suppose I know these two.

  • I'm going to show you how to break it.

  • So let's have a look.

  • The encryption, m prime, is congruent to m times k modulo

  • p.

  • We just proved it over here.

  • And what do we know?

  • We know that p is a public prime.

  • I know p.

  • Since it's a prime, I know that the GCD of m and p equals 1.

  • So these two are relatively prime.

  • So now if they are relatively prime--

  • and that's what we wrote up here--

  • we know that there exists this linear combination

  • of, in this case, m and p that is equal to 1.

  • And this way we can figure out how

  • to compute the inverse-- the multiplicative inverse of m.

  • So that's what we're going to do.

  • So we can compute and the multiplicative inverse, such

  • that m times m inverse is congruent to 1 modulo p.

  • So now we can do the next step.

  • So what could I do next?

  • So let's see, if I have such an inverse,

  • then I can take my encrypted message

  • that I have as an attacker, which is m prime.

  • I know m, and since p was public,

  • I can compute this multiplicative inverse.

  • So I could just compute this product,

  • and I know that this is actually equal to, well, k times m times

  • m inverse.

  • This is again equal to-- congruent to 1 modulo p.

  • So this is equal to k modulo p.

  • So now, all of a sudden, I know k modulo p,

  • because I know those two.

  • So if I know k, I can compute its multiplicative inverse.

  • So I can compute k inverse modulo p.

  • And if I know k inverse, again, I

  • can use it to decrypt any other encrypted message

  • that I receive.

  • So for all future encrypted messages,

  • I do not need anymore the plain messages.

  • I've already used-- just by using one plain message

  • encryption pair, I have been able to compute the secret key,

  • and the whole scheme is broken.

  • So security is kind of an interesting science.

  • We can always think of more tricks

  • to break schemes, or other assumptions,

  • that we haven't thought about before.

  • And so now, let's talk about-- so what did we do here?

  • We have been talking about encryption-- these two schemes.

  • We talked about modular arithmetic.

  • We talked about congruence, and also

  • the multiplicative inverse.

  • And we showed how to use that to break Turing's code, version

  • number two.

  • So we need something much more fundamental

  • in order to create a scheme that is really secure.

  • And that's what we're going to do now.

  • We're going to start off with Euler's totient function,

  • and improve a related theorem.

  • And with that we will be able to actually explain

  • RSA algorithm, which is a famous algorithm invented here

  • at MIT in 1977, by Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman.

  • And they actually also got the Turing Award

  • for this a few years ago.

  • And it's widely used in practice.

  • But we will be able to actually explain

  • this algorithm with just this fundamental piece of number

  • theory.

  • So that's really exciting.

  • So let's do this.

  • So we're going to first define Euler's totient function.

  • And it's related to this multiplicative inverse.

  • This function is denoted phi of n,

  • and it denote the number of the integers

  • in 1, 2, 3-- all the way up to n minus 1, that

  • are relatively prime to n.

  • So this just drops out of the air, you may think.

  • But this is a fundamental quantity,

  • and Euler's theorem is what we will try to prove next.

  • But let's give a couple of examples

  • about this, just to see how it works.

  • So for example, let's take n to be equal to 12.

  • What would be the value of Euler's totient function,

  • evaluated for 12?

  • So if you take 12, we have the following numbers to consider.

  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, and 12.

  • So now, let's have a look.

  • You want to count the integers that

  • are relatively prime to 12.

  • Well, 1 is relatively prime to 12.

  • Why is that?

  • Because to GCD of 12 and 1 is equal to 1,

  • and that's the definition of being relatively prime.

  • So this is a good number.

  • The GCD of 12 and 2, well both are divisible by 2.

  • So they're not relatively prime, because the GCD

  • is at least two.

  • In this case, equal to 2.

  • 3 also divides 12.

  • 4 divides 12.

  • 5 is relatively prime with respect to 12.

  • 6 actually is dividing 12 as well.

  • 7 is relatively prime, and 11 over here as well.

  • And all the others have a greatest common divisor

  • that's larger than 1.

  • So here we see that the Euler's totient function evaluated

  • in 12 is equal to 4.

  • There are one, two, three, four integers

  • that are relatively prime.

  • OK, so let's have a different one.

  • Say, n equals 15.

  • It's little bit different, because here you

  • may think this is kind of coincidental that 1,

  • 5, 7, and 11 are actually, also, primes.

  • But for 15 it looks a little bit different.

  • So let's write out all the numbers.

  • Again, let's have a look.

  • Well, one is the greatest common divisor

  • equal to 1, with respect to 15.

  • 2 is also relatively prime, with respect to 15.

  • 3 is dividing 15.

  • 4-- yeah, 4 and 15 have greatest common divisor equal to 1.

  • So that's relatively prime.

  • 5 is not.

  • 6 is not.

  • 7 is relatively prime.

  • 8-- again, this is only divisible by power of 2,

  • and this has no power of 2 in it.

  • 9, 10 are-- this one is divisible by 5, divisible by 3.

  • 11 is, again, relatively prime.

  • And then we have 13 is relatively prime as well.

  • And 14 as well, because this is 2 times 7,

  • and this is 3 times 5.

  • So how many do we see now?

  • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

  • So the Euler's totient function evaluated in 15

  • is actually equal to 8.

  • Now, it turns out that this function has

  • really nice properties, and you can easily

  • calculate-- if you know the decomposition of n

  • into its primes, and powers of primes--

  • you can easily compute this number, phi of n.

  • Now, you will be able to find this in the book.

  • You should read it.

  • And also, problem set talks about this.

  • But for now, let's just talk about this

  • is an abstract notion, because that's all

  • that we will use in this lecture.

  • But you will have a few exercises

  • to talk about computing this kind of stuff.

  • OK, so let's talk about Euler's totient function and Euler's

  • theorem.

  • So let me use this blackboard.

  • Now, this is really an exciting theorem.

  • And it's a little bit hard to prove.

  • So why we'll need a little bit more time to do this.

  • Euler's theorem says the following.

  • If the GCD of n and k is equal to 1,

  • then k to the power [INAUDIBLE] the Euler's totient function

  • evaluated in n is actually congruent to 1 modulo n.

  • So this is what we're going to prove here.

  • So why is this so interesting?

  • Well, we'll talk about an application which

  • is a direct consequence of this theorem, which we'll

  • call Fermat's little theorem.

  • And that, in turn, we will use to explain the RSA algorithm,

  • and show how the decryption works, and so on.

  • So how can we prove this?

  • It will start with a first lemma,

  • and then we're going to do a few tricks-- mathematical tricks,

  • you will see it.

  • So the first lemma is that if I know

  • that the GCD-- which is what we are assuming,

  • the statement of the theorum-- if I know that the GCD of n

  • and k equals 1, then I know that and a times k--

  • if a times k is congruent to b times k modulo n,

  • then this applies that a is congruent to b modulo n.

  • All this seems to be kind of a straightforward lemma.

  • I will only talk about its proof.

  • So how do we do it?

  • Well, first of all, I know that the GCD of n and k equals 1.

  • So that means that I can create a multiplicative inverse,

  • because I know that there's such a linear combination that

  • will ends up to 1.

  • So I have the multiplicative inverse.

  • I multiply both sides with this, and then I will end up to,

  • a is congruent to b modulo n.

  • And actually, you can use some of the facts

  • on your sheet to prove this.

  • And in the problem set, you probably

  • have seen that there are a number of problems

  • related to this.

  • So you will recognize this, and prove a few of these things

  • yourself.

  • OK, so this is-- so let me see.

  • So let me see what we have done here.

  • Actually, I noticed that I've missed one statement

  • that I would like to explicitly mention.

  • I mean, I've used it a few times.

  • Let me do that first.

  • Which is that, we know that if the GCD of n and k equals 1,

  • then-- this is if, and only if, the case-- if k

  • has a multiplicative inverse-- I've not yet explicitly stated

  • it-- and we can easily see this--

  • let me just give a quick proof to show how this works.

  • Well, if the GCD is equal to 1, then we

  • use the statement up there.

  • So this is if, and only if, there

  • exists a linear combination.

  • So an s and a t, such that n times s plus k times t

  • equals 1.

  • Well, then I also know that there exists a t such that,

  • actually, the difference between 1 and k times t

  • is divisible by n.

  • So n divides the difference of k times t minus 1.

  • So why is that?

  • Well, if I look at the difference between k times

  • t and 1, the difference is n times s.

  • And n times s is divisible by n.

  • So now, by the definition of congruence,

  • I just apply the definition over here.

  • We have written it out here.

  • We can say that k times t is congruent to 1 modulo n.

  • And this is the definition of the multiplication inverse.

  • So we have essentially shown that if the greatest

  • common divisors in any case equal to 1,

  • then it has a multiplicative inverse.

  • OK, we have been using this property over

  • here because we assume that the greatest common divisor is

  • equal to 1.

  • So we now know that there exists a multiplicative inverse of k.

  • We use that one to multiply away, essentially,

  • the k out of this equation, and get

  • a is congruent to b modulo n.

  • Also note that we use the property over here.

  • We said that we wanted to compute, what was it again?

  • Over here-- we started off with the GCD of m and p

  • to be equal to 1, and I know p.

  • And now I can compute the multiplicative inverse of m.

  • And I should have said why it exists.

  • And it exists because of that lemma

  • that I just mentioned up here.

  • OK, so now let's go back to Euler's theorem.

  • This first lemma we are going to use to prove a second lemma,

  • and that second lemma we can finally

  • use to prove the theorem.

  • All right, so this lemma I will put on a separate board,

  • because it contains quite a number of steps to prove.

  • So the lemma states that, if we suppose that the GCD of n and k

  • equals 1-- so it's the same assumptions as before-- if it

  • lets k1 all the way up to k r to be those integers in the range

  • 1, 2, 3, and so on, to n minus 1,

  • that are relatively prime-- so these denote

  • the integers relatively prime to n-- then

  • we can prove a very interesting property.

  • Now, notice by the way, that r in here

  • is equal to this value of the Euler's totient function

  • evaluated in n.

  • Because this counts the total number

  • of numbers that are relatively prime with respect to n.

  • So now we can prove something really spectacular.

  • We can show that the set that contains

  • all of these remainders-- the remainder of k 1 times k,

  • after dividing out this many multiples of n

  • as possible, all the way to the remainder off k r times k,

  • after dividing out as many multiples of n as possible,

  • this set is actually equal to the set k 1 up to k r.

  • So this is what we're going to prove.

  • And we'll do it in two steps.

  • We first show that this set has exactly r numbers.

  • So the cardinality of that set is equal to r.

  • So that will be our first step in the proof.

  • And over here we will show that every remainder is actually

  • relatively prime to n, so it must be part of this set.

  • So we will show that this is a subset of this set

  • in a second part of the proof.

  • And combining those two, we are able to prove equality.

  • Why's that?

  • Well I have r distinct elements in this set,

  • I have r distinct elements in this set, this one

  • is a subset of this.

  • So that can only happen if they are equal.

  • So this is the method for the proof.

  • I should-- so we'll start with the first part.

  • And the way to do that is to see whether it is possible

  • that any two remainders in that set, can they

  • be equal to one another?

  • We will show that that's not possible.

  • So if it's not possible, then all these remainders

  • must be different.

  • And we have exactly r of those.

  • So let's do this.

  • So the proof for 1 is as follows.

  • Let's assume that we he have to remainders.

  • Say, k i times k, and a remainder k j times k,

  • after dividing out as many multiples of n.

  • And supposed that they are equal to one another.

  • We're going to show that this can only

  • happen if k i is equal to k j.

  • And if you can see that, well then

  • we know that all these different remainders are actually

  • different from one another.

  • And if they're all different from one another,

  • then we must have exactly r.

  • Because we have k 1 up to k r in here.

  • OK let's see where we can do this.

  • Well, if you know that these two remainders are

  • equal to one another, we can look at them with respect

  • to these definitions over here.

  • And we can show that k i times k is actually

  • congruent to k j times k modulo n.

  • So why is this?

  • Well, these two remainders are the same.

  • And k i times k is equal to this remainder,

  • plus a multiple of n.

  • This k j times k is equal to this remainder plus,

  • a multiple of n.

  • So the difference between those two is also a multiple of n.

  • And that's the definition of congruence.

  • So now we can use our first lemma,

  • which is stated over here.

  • We know that we assumed in Euler's theorem

  • that the GCD of n and k is equal to 1.

  • If a times k is congruent to b times k modulo n,

  • then we know that's a is congruent to b modulo n.

  • So let's apply it over here, and take for a k

  • i, and for b we can take k j.

  • So now we see that key k i is congruent to k j modulo n.

  • And from this we will conclude-- and that

  • takes an extra step-- that k i is actually equal to k j.

  • So how can we do this?

  • Well, we know that k i and k j are both in the range from 1

  • all the way up to n minus 1.

  • So if I look at the difference between those

  • two-- so by definition of congruence

  • I know that n divides k i minus k j.

  • I know that this one is in the range from 0 up to n minus 1.

  • This one is in the range of 0 up to n minus 1.

  • The only way how a difference of two numbers in this range

  • can be divisible by n, is if this thing is equal to zero.

  • And that means that k i equals k j.

  • So now we are done with the first part,

  • because we have shown that if I take any two

  • remainders over here it must be that they can only

  • be equal to one another if, actually, the k i is

  • equal to the k j.

  • So actually we're looking at the same remainder.

  • So they remainders in this set are all different,

  • and there are exactly r of those.

  • So now we go to the second part of the proof.

  • And notice that we are-- so far we've only

  • been proving the second lemma, and we still

  • need to go to Euler's theorem as well.

  • So it still takes a few steps.

  • So how do we do the second part?

  • Well, we saw in last lecture that we were

  • explaining Euclid's algorithm.

  • And we used, essentially, this property.

  • We said that the greatest common divisor between n

  • and the remainder of say, k i times k and n,

  • is actually equal to the greatest common divisor of n

  • and k i times k.

  • So why is this, again?

  • Well, the remaining is actually equal to k i times k,

  • minus a multiple of n, right?

  • So the greatest common divisor is therefore--

  • between n and this-- is the same as the greatest common divisor

  • between n and k i times k.

  • So you should have to look at last lecture.

  • And now we are pretty much done.

  • Why is this?

  • Because we have assumed that the greatest common divisor

  • between n and k is equal to 1.

  • And k i, in the statement of the lemma,

  • is relatively prime to n.

  • And that means, according to the definition over there,

  • that the greatest common divisor between k i and n

  • is also equal to 1.

  • So we know that both these greatest common

  • divisors are equal to 1.

  • So that means that there is no common divisor between n

  • and these, except 1 of course.

  • So what does this say?

  • Well, this means that this remainder, according

  • to our definition, is relatively prime to n,

  • because this greatest common divisor is equal to 1.

  • So if it is an integer relatively prime to n,

  • then it must be one of those k i's, k j's

  • in this set that is stated in the lemma.

  • So this shows that it must be part of this set over here.

  • So if proven, the fact [? is ?] that the set of all

  • the remainders is a subset of the set k 1 of the k r.

  • So now we're done.

  • So now that we have shown this particular lemma,

  • we can continue and prove Euler's theorem.

  • And I'll probably need to wipe out some of this.

  • So let's use this lemma to prove this theorem.

  • So this is really a neat trick.

  • So the proof of Euler's theorem is as follows.

  • We're going to take the product of all those k i's over there,

  • and see where we can find a nice relationship.

  • So we take k 1 times k 2, all the way times k r.

  • And we know, because those two sets are actually the same,

  • that this is equal to the remainder--

  • the first remainder-- k 1 times k,

  • after dividing out as many multiples of n.

  • And we go all the way up to the final one,

  • the remainder of k r times k, dividing out

  • as many multiples of n.

  • So now we can see that-- well, we've already

  • shown that each of those remainders

  • is congruent to, in this case, this one

  • is congruent to k 1 times k modulo n.

  • And this one is congruent to k r times k modulo n.

  • So let's write it out.

  • So it's k 1 times k.

  • And then we have k 2 times k.

  • And finally we have k r times k modulo n.

  • So let's regroup those.

  • We see k 1, k 2, all the way up to k r reappearing.

  • And we have a k here, a k here, and we

  • have that r times-- so we have times

  • k to the power r modulo n.

  • So now we are able to, again, use this particular lemma

  • over here.

  • So what do we do?

  • Well, we know that k 1 is relatively prime to n.

  • And k 2 is as well, all the way up to k r.

  • So this whole product is also relatively prime, with respect

  • to n.

  • That means that the greatest common divisor

  • of this whole product with n is equal to 1.

  • So that means that I can divide out this whole product.

  • We have-- so let's do this.

  • We have 1 times this product.

  • We take this for a, and we take this for b.

  • And then we can divide this whole thing out

  • according to this particular lemma,

  • by using the multiplicative inverse of that product.

  • So now we see that the 1 is equal to k to the power r

  • modulo n.

  • And remember, in our theorem, r over here

  • in this lemma-- r is actually equal to the Euler's

  • totient function in n.

  • So now this equation proves the whole theorem.

  • OK, so now I'm going to talk about RSA,

  • which is the last part here.

  • So maybe you all would like to have

  • a little break of a couple of minutes, just to relax a bit.

  • And then-- and shake hands with your neighbors,

  • and jump up in the air if you'd like to.

  • All right let's start with the RSA algorithm.

  • So we have done everything up to this point.

  • And we are actually-- we have done these two over here.

  • We still have to talk about Fermat's little theorem.

  • But then we can go for RSA, and it uses this consequence

  • of Euler's theorem.

  • So Fermat's little theorem is actually

  • talking about what happens if n is a prime number.

  • It says, well, suppose p is a prime.

  • And if you have k in the range 1, 2, all the way up

  • to p minus 1, then we can conclude that k

  • to the power of p minus 1 is congruent to 1 modulo n.

  • And we can directly prove this by using Euler's theorem.

  • So how do we do this?

  • Well, we know that p is prime.

  • So the numbers 1, 2, all the way up to p minus 1,

  • are actually relatively prime to p.

  • So why is that?

  • Well, p is prime.

  • So the greatest common divisor between any of those with p

  • is equal to 1.

  • That's the definition of relatively prime.

  • And we know that we can now apply

  • Euler's theorem over here, and see

  • that k to the power phi of p is, of course, congruent

  • to 1 modulo p.

  • That's Euler's theorem.

  • But now, since we know that these are the exact ones that

  • are relatively prime, we can explicitly

  • compute the Euler's totient function of p.

  • Because there are p minus 1 numbers that

  • are relatively prime to p.

  • So that's the definition over here.

  • So the number of integers in the range 1 up to p minus 1--

  • they're all relatively prime.

  • So we know that 5 p is equal to p minus 1.

  • So now we have shown that k to the power of p minus 1

  • is congruent to 1 modulo k.

  • This is kind of interesting because we can use this theorem

  • also to compute the multiplicative inverse of k,

  • in this particular case.

  • So how do we do this?

  • We just take k, and we look at what

  • happens if you multiply k with k to the power of p minus 2.

  • Well, this is equal to k to the power p minus 1, which

  • is congruent to 1 modulo p according to Fermat's theorem.

  • So now, when we look at the definition

  • of multiplicative inverse over here,

  • we see that k to the power p minus 2

  • is actually the multiplicative inverse of k.

  • So k inverse is actually equal to k to the power

  • p minus 2 modulo k.

  • All right, so this theorem we're going to use now

  • in the description of RSA.

  • As I said, it was only decades later, after Turing,

  • Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman were the first to really show

  • how number theory could be applied so

  • successfully in cryptography.

  • And they essentially showed the first public key encryption

  • scheme in which a sender and receiver do not necessarily

  • have to exchange a secret key.

  • That's not necessary.

  • So they had a public key method.

  • And that's still used today, and it's a great inventions.

  • So how does the RSA work?

  • Again, we have to talk with an encryption scheme

  • about what happens beforehand.

  • So beforehand, we need to generate this public key

  • and a secret key.

  • So the idea is that the receiver creates a public key, and also

  • a secret key.

  • He will publish the public key, and he will keep

  • the secret key for himself.

  • And now anybody can use the public key

  • to encrypt a message.

  • The encrypted message is sent to the receiver,

  • and he's going to use his secret key to get back

  • to the plain message.

  • So how is he going to do this?

  • Well in the first step, the idea is

  • to generate two distinct primes.

  • Turns out that this can be done in a very efficient way.

  • There are lots of primes among the integers.

  • So you just sample.

  • And it turns out that you can test primality

  • with a pretty high probability, very efficiently.

  • And recently, actually, there has

  • been a deterministic algorithm that is polynomial.

  • And a number of bits of the primes

  • that can actually tell you whether you have a prime

  • or not.

  • So you can do this.

  • Two, we're going to create the product of these two

  • distinct primes.

  • And that's where our assumption is going to help us.

  • That it is hard to factor a product of two large primes.

  • That's going to be the underlying hardness assumption

  • of the RSA encryption scheme.

  • So let n be this.

  • Three, we are going to select an integer e,

  • such that the greatest common divisor of e

  • with the product p minus 1 times q minus 1

  • is actually equal to 1.

  • And the public-- and once we have created this,

  • the public key is going to be a pair that consists

  • of e itself together with n.

  • So that's the public key.

  • And the secret key is going to be computed as follows,

  • in step four.

  • We are going to compute.

  • d, such that d times e is congruent to 1 modulo

  • that product of p minus 1 times q minus 1.

  • Can we do this?

  • Yeah, because the greatest common divisor between e

  • and that product is equal to 1.

  • And we have shown over here that, therefore, it

  • has a multiplicative inverse.

  • And first of all, we know that the solution d exists,

  • and we can also efficiently compute it.

  • So the secret key is going to be the pair that

  • consists of d and also n.

  • So how does it work?

  • The sender knows the public key, e and n,

  • and uses those to encrypt a message.

  • I will explain it in a moment.

  • And then the receiver knows the secret key, d and n,

  • and then is able to decrypt.

  • OK, so let's see how encryption works.

  • And then we will have to do a lot of mathematics

  • to get the decryption going.

  • So m prime, which is computed-- so the encrypted plain text is

  • computed as the remainder of m to the power e--

  • which is part of the public key--

  • and then dividing out as many multiples of n as possible.

  • It turns out-- and we are going to prove this-- that decryption

  • works as follows.

  • We can compute m by using m prime.

  • So we receive m prime.

  • What do we do?

  • We're going to take m prime, raise it to the power d-- which

  • is part of the secret key-- and then dividing out

  • as many multiples of n.

  • Now, why would that work?

  • Why would this work?

  • So let's prove this step over here.

  • Well, it turns out that they can apply Fermat's theorem,

  • and the idea is as follows.

  • So let's have a look.

  • We know that m prime is equal to the remainder of m raised

  • to the power e, which is congruent to m

  • to the power e, modulo n.

  • We've seen this now a number of times, right?

  • So what does this imply?

  • This implies that m prime to the power d is actually equal--

  • is congruent to m to the power e, to the power d.

  • So I just raised this side to the power d,

  • and I raised this side to the power d.

  • And I still-- and I know, now, that m

  • prime to the power d is equal to m to the power e d--

  • congruent to m to the power e d modulo n.

  • So now we know that there exists an integer r.

  • We are going to use the fact that we have that e

  • and p minus 1 times q minus 1 as a greatest

  • common divisor over 1.

  • So we know that e times d is actually equal to 1,

  • plus r times p minus 1, times q minus 1.

  • Actually, what I use here is the fact-- is this over here.

  • By definition of congruency, I know

  • that the difference between those two-- d times

  • e and 1-- is divisible by this product.

  • So I know that there exists an integer such

  • that e times d equals 1, plus a multiple of that product.

  • That's how it works.

  • So we know that m prime to the power

  • d-- we already saw that it is equal to m to the power e d,

  • which is congruent to-- well, we just

  • replace e d by 1 plus r times this multiple.

  • So we have m to the power 1, times m

  • to the power-- this part-- r p minus 1, q minus 1.

  • So now we're finally going get to Fermat's theorem.

  • We know that n is the products of p and q,

  • and I'm not actually sure I do this here.

  • So let's apply Fermat's theorem and see how we can use this.

  • So if m is not congruent to 0 modulo p,

  • well then we can apply Fermat's theorem.

  • Where is it?

  • It's over here.

  • We can only apply this if k is in the range from 1

  • to p minus 1 is not equal to zero.

  • So if m is not equal to 0-- not congruent to 0 modulo p--

  • then we can apply the theorem and state

  • that m to the power p minus 1 is congruent to 1 modulo p.

  • And in the same way, we can do this for q.

  • So if this is not true-- modulo q-- then m

  • to the power q minus 1 is congruent to 1 modulo q.

  • So here we have used Fermat's theorem twice.

  • Now we can apply what we have learned before,

  • which is what we wrote down over here.

  • And prime to the power d is congruent to this modulo n.

  • Now n is p times q, so let's have a look at what that means.

  • It means that since n is a product of p and q,

  • we can also look at this congruent modulo p.

  • So in particular, we know that m prime to the power

  • d is congruent to m times m r p minus 1 times q minus

  • 1 modulo p.

  • Why is that?

  • Well, we know that n divides this difference

  • by the definition of congruency.

  • n is equal to p times q.

  • So if n is dividing this difference,

  • also p is dividing this difference.

  • So that's why we can write it m prime to the power d

  • is congruent to this thing, modulo p.

  • And of course, we can repeat this for q.

  • So let me write this out as well.

  • So there it is.

  • So now we can there use what we have figured out over here.

  • So we know that if m is not equal to 0,

  • then this thing over here cancels out.

  • Because m to the power p minus 1 is congruent to 1.

  • So we have that m prime to the power

  • d is congruent to m modulo p, if m is not

  • congruent to 0 modulo p, right?

  • Because if m is not congruent to zero,

  • we have this particular equation.

  • We plug it in over here, this all cancels,

  • and we just are left with m.

  • Now, if m is equal-- is congruent-- to 0 modulo p,

  • then we can see that it is equal to 0.

  • So it's equal to 0.

  • So this actually holds for any case.

  • Now we can do the same for q-- the same argument--

  • and show that this must hold.

  • So now we know that p divides the difference

  • of m prime d minus m.

  • q is another prime that divides this difference.

  • And the only way that's possible is if the product of p and q

  • is dividing this particular number-- this difference.

  • And we have two different primes dividing the same number,

  • so the product must [? divided. ?]

  • So p times q divides m prime d minus m.

  • Oh, but p times q is equal to n.

  • So now we're almost done, because now we

  • can state-- by the definition of congruency--

  • that m prime to the power d is congruent to m modulo n.

  • Now, since m is a message that's in the range of-- so I did not

  • write it down here-- so m is a message

  • which is in the range of 0 all the way up to n minus 1.

  • We know, and we have seen it before with Turing's code,

  • that we can rewrite this and say that m equals

  • the remainder of m prime to the power

  • d, after multiplying out as many multiples of n as possible.

  • So here you go.

  • So this is the decryption rule, and it works.

  • We have shown that this equation truly holds.

  • So RSA has really withstood the test of time.

  • It's already out there for many decades,

  • and it's still widely used.

  • I wanted to talk a little bit about this,

  • but there seemed not to be enough time.

  • But I'd just like to mention that only 2009 Craig Gentry

  • proved a beautiful theorem, and was able to evaluate

  • Boolean circuits.

  • Or, say, certain types of programs under encryption.

  • So you can sort of add and multiply cypher text

  • encryptions together, and it is as if you multiply them

  • at the plain text level.

  • That was a fantastic-- that was an enormous open problem.

  • And he solved it.

  • And only a few months earlier, in 2010,

  • in joint work with Craig and some other colleagues at IBM,

  • we showed it with very simple arithmetic

  • that just uses modulo p and modulo 2 kind of things.

  • We could show a construction this

  • has such a property-- such an encryption

  • scheme of the integers.

  • So there's still a lot of stuff going on in this area.

  • And really, we use this type of very basic stuff.

  • The problem in cryptography is to show that it is secure.

  • So you have to show that breaking the scheme

  • needs to be reduced to some really hard problem.

  • And that is always the really difficult part

  • of such type of research.

  • OK, well, have lots of fun with recitation.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it