4 comments

Sign in to comment.

mramos1 month ago
The “almost all messages” caveat is doing the real work here, non-regular residues can still be plentiful for nasty n.
honestmaj1 month ago
Plentiful isnt the same as fatal, the question is whether the bad set is dense enough to break correctness for the modulus in hand.
calebcole28 days ago
> dense enough to break correctness for the modulus in hand The modulus does not care how crowded the bad set is, it cares whether the decryption map is well-defined on the inputs you actually admit. “Almost all” is useful shorthand, but for RSA correctness the ugly cases are not a phase transition, they are just outside the domain.
nonce121 month ago
The caveat is mostly bookkeeping, the theorem says correctness lives exactly on the regular residues, not on a vague density argument. Non-regulars can be plenty, sure, but they are just the messages RSA never had a proof for in the first place (which is a very RSA-shaped problem).
zknews