Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Stark-Coleman Invariants and Quantum Lower Bounds: An Integrated Framework for Real Quadratic Fields

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A p-adic number attached to each split prime is claimed to classify class groups and to force an exponential quantum lower bound for class-group discrete logarithms.

desk verdict The paper's central invariant is trivial for every prime it is defined on, making the main classification theorem vacuous. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07640 v1 pith:QC6KOSOK submitted 2025-06-09 math.NT cs.CRmath.GRquant-ph

Ruopengyu Xu , Chenglian Liu This is my paper
classification math.NTcs.CRmath.GRquant-ph MSC 11R2911R1111S4068Q12
keywords classgroupsrealquadraticfieldsStarkunitsp-adicL-functionsColemanintegrationquantumlowerboundsgroupdiscretelogarithmGRH
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to prove that the class group of a real quadratic field $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{D})$ with $D>10^{32}$ and abelian $p$-Sylow subgroups is completely determined by a small collection of $p$-adic numbers $\kappa_p(K)=\log_p(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p}/\sigma(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p}))\bmod p^{\mathrm{ord}_p(\Delta_K)}$, one for each prime $p<\log\log D$, conditional on the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. The numbers are built from an enhanced Stark unit $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p}=\exp_p(L'_p(0,\chi_D))$, whose $p$-adic logarithm is the derivative of the $p$-adic $L$-function, and from Coleman integrals along paths attached to Artin symbols; the intended mechanism is that these path integrals carry the Galois action on a Drinfeld module Tate module. If the classification result holds, deciding whether two large real quadratic fields have isomorphic class groups reduces to comparing finitely many computable invariants. The same framework yields the paper's second main claim, a quantum lower bound of $\exp(\Omega(\log D/(\log\log D)^2))$ for the class group discrete logarithm problem under GRH, which would mean these discrete logs have no fast quantum algorithm in this range. The principal caveat stated by the paper is that all of this is conditional on GRH and on the asserted existence of the enhanced Stark units.

What carries the argument

The core machinery is the Stark-Coleman invariant $\kappa_p(K)$, a single $p$-adic residue attached to each split prime $p$, together with the objects that define it: the enhanced Stark unit $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p}=\exp_p(L'_p(0,\chi_D))$, the nontrivial automorphism $\sigma$, and the Coleman integral of the Drinfeld-module differential $\omega_A$ along paths $\gamma_{\sigma_a}=\mathrm{art}^{-1}(\sigma_a)(\gamma_{\mathrm{St}})$ in a $p$-adic Lie group. These ingredients are arranged in a commutative diagram connecting the class group $\mathrm{Cl}(K)$, the Galois group of the Hilbert class field, and $\mathrm{Aut}_{\mathbb{Z}_p}(T_p(A))$, and the invariant is what survives when the Galois action is compressed into a logarithm of a ratio. For the quantum lower bound the machinery shifts to a second object, the Cayley graph Hamiltonian on the class group, whose spectral gap is bounded below by $h(K)^{-1+\epsilon}$ under GRH; the adiabatic quantum-walk query bound converts that gap into a time lower bound.

What would settle it

Evaluate $\kappa_5$ for the paper's own examples $K_1=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{101})$ and $K_2=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{229})$ by computing $L'_5(0,\chi_D)$ to enough $5$-adic precision and taking the logarithm of the Stark-unit ratio; the claimed residues are $2$ and $4$ mod $5$. A computation producing different residues would show the invariant is not connected to $L'_p(0,\chi_D)$ as asserted. More broadly, one can search small discriminants for two non-isomorphic class groups whose $\kappa_p$ values agree for every $p<\log\log\max(D_1,D_2)$; one such pair would refute the converse direction of Theorem 2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2: for real quadratic fields $K_i=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{D_i})$ with $D_1,D_2>10^{32}$ and abelian $p$-Sylow subgroups, $\mathrm{Cl}(K_1)\cong\mathrm{Cl}(K_2)$ if and only if $\kappa_p(K_1)=\kappa_p(K_2)$ for all $p<\log\log\max(D_1,D_2)$, under GRH. The forward direction is argued through Artin reciprocity: a class group isomorphism induces a Galois isomorphism, and Coleman integrals of the Drinfeld-module differential transform covariantly, preserving the logarithm of the Stark-unit ratio. The reverse direction uses generation of the class group by prime ideals of small norm: if the invariants agree at every small prime, the corresponding Artin symbols coincide, so the Galois groups of the Hilbert class fields are isomorphic and hence the class groups are. The companion Theorem 4 claims that any quantum algorithm for CL-DLP needs at least $\exp(c\log D/(\log\log D)^2)$ time under GRH, obtained by feeding the spectral gap $\Delta\ge h(K)^{-1+\epsilon}$ of the Cayley graph into an adiabatic quantum-walk lower bound and combining it with an effective class-number lower bound.

Load-bearing premise

The whole framework rests on the asserted existence of the enhanced Stark unit $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p}$ for each split prime $p$, whose logarithm, divisibility, and behavior under conjugation must match the three formulas in Section 2.2; if no such number exists, the invariant is undefined and the classification and lower bound do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $D>10^{32}$, class-group isomorphism testing would reduce to comparing finitely many residues $\kappa_p$ for $p<\log\log\max(D_1,D_2)$, rather than constructing an explicit isomorphism.
  • The claimed lower bound $\exp(\Omega(\log D/(\log\log D)^2))$ under GRH would mean class-group discrete logarithms in this range are not susceptible to fast quantum discrete-log algorithms.
  • The invariant is asserted to distinguish non-isomorphic class groups even when class numbers differ, as in the paper's example at $p=5$ for $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{101})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{229})$.
  • The augmented invariant $\tilde{\kappa}_p(K)$, with the extra dimension $\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Cl}(K)[p],\mu_p)$, extends the criterion to non-abelian $p$-Sylow subgroups.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: if the invariant is genuine, tabulating $\kappa_p$ over many small discriminants and matching equality patterns against known class-group isomorphism classes would turn the classification criterion into a numerical fingerprint; the paper does not provide such a table.
  • Extension: the quantum lower bound would become unconditional if the enhanced Stark unit could be constructed directly from $L'_p(0,\chi_D)$; as written, its existence is assumed, so the bound inherits that assumption.
  • Extension: the paper's worked example at $p=5$ can be checked numerically, since computing $L'_5(0,\chi_D)$ for $D=101,229$ to enough precision and forming the specified logarithm would confirm the asserted residues $2$ and $4$ mod $5$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an invariant kappa_p(K) for real quadratic fields, built from an 'enhanced Stark unit' epsilon_{St,p} = exp_p(L'_p(0, chi_D)), and claims in Theorem 2 that equality of these invariants for all small p characterizes isomorphism of class groups for discriminants D > 10^32. The same framework is used to derive a quantum lower bound exp(c log D / (log log D)^2) for the class group discrete logarithm problem under GRH (Theorem 4), together with a theoretical encryption scheme and security reduction. The central technical steps are: a Coleman-integral embedding of the class group (Theorem 1), a spectral-gap estimate for a Cayley graph of Cl(K) (Theorem 3), and the subsequent lower bound. The paper is exclusively theoretical and presents no numerical experiments, with one illustrative example in Section 3.2.

Significance. If the main theorems were correct, the paper would resolve the isomorphism problem for real quadratic class groups in a large discriminant range and give a strong conditional quantum lower bound for CL-DLP, both notable results. However, the central invariant is trivial by the paper's own definition, and the main proofs rely on unproved existence and valuation properties of Stark units and on unsupported analytic number theory bounds. I give credit for the ambition of connecting p-adic Stark theory, Coleman integration, and quantum walk lower bounds, and for stating the assumptions explicitly in places. But there are no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code, and the one worked example contains an arithmetic error. Because the principal classification claim collapses at the definition of kappa_p, the framework does not currently provide a usable invariant or a valid lower bound.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (23); Theorem 2] The invariant kappa_p(K) is defined only for primes p that split in K, and is reduced modulo p^{ord_p(Delta_K)}. For a split prime p, p is unramified, so p does not divide Delta_K and ord_p(Delta_K)=0. The modulus is therefore p^0 = 1, and kappa_p(K) is identically the trivial residue 0 for every split prime. Consequently the condition 'kappa_p(K_1) = kappa_p(K_2) for all p < log log max(D_1,D_2)' in Theorem 2 is satisfied vacuously by every pair of fields, regardless of whether Cl(K_1) is isomorphic to Cl(K_2). This makes the claimed equivalence vacuous and cannot be repaired by proving the Stark-unit properties in Section 2.2. Example 1 is part of the problem: for K_1 = Q(sqrt(101)), Delta_{K_1}=404 and 5 does not divide 404, so ord_5(Delta_{K_1})=0, not 1 as stated; the reported values kappa_5 in {2,4} mod 5 are therefore not well-defined.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2)-(5); Section 3.1] The properties (3) and (4), namely ord_p(epsilon_{St,p}) = lambda_p(chi_St) and Galois equivariance, are asserted for the object defined in Eq. (2) but are not consequences of the definition epsilon_{St,p} = exp_p(L'_p(0,chi_D)). Eq. (5) is tautological, while (3) and (4) are essentially a p-adic Stark conjecture. The text states these properties without proof, and the 'Existence and Construction' paragraph in Section 2.2 gives an iterative approximation but does not establish either valuation or equivariance. Since Lemma 2, Theorem 1, and the embedding Psi all rely on epsilon_{St,p} having these properties, the classification framework rests on an unproved conjecture that is not identified as such in the theorem statements.
  3. [Section 4.2, Theorem 4 and Eq. (39)] The quantum lower bound depends on the effective class number lower bound h(K) >= exp(log 2 * log D / (log log D)^2) for D > 10^32, stated in Eq. (39) and attributed to Ref. [9]. No proof or precise reference is given, and Neukirch's textbook does not contain such an explicit effective bound. The constant c = log 2 * epsilon then has no foundation. Additionally, Step 1 applies 'Ambainis' adiabatic theorem' from Ref. [5], a paper on element distinctness, without showing that the quantum walk model or the success probability h(K)^{-1} satisfies the hypotheses of any such theorem. The lower bound in Theorem 4 is therefore not derived from first principles as claimed.
  4. [Section 4.1, Theorem 3, Proof Step 3] The proof of the spectral gap bound Delta >= h(K)^{-1+epsilon} contains the unsupported assertion that the Siegel-Walfisz theorem gives |partial S| >> |S| h(K)^{-1+epsilon} for every subset S of Cl(K). No derivation is supplied, and the cited reference [2] does not establish this boundary estimate. Since Theorem 3 is the input to the quantum lower bound, the claimed Omega(log D / (log log D)^2) exponent is not demonstrated. The 'explicit constant' c(epsilon)=epsilon^2/log^2 D also appears without derivation.
  5. [Section 3.2, Theorem 2, proof of (<=)] The reverse direction of Theorem 2 asserts that by the Chebotarev density theorem, primes with N(p) < log^3 D generate Cl(K_i), and that equality of the kappa_p invariants for p < log log D implies a norm-compatible isomorphism of the Galois groups. The first assertion is not a consequence of Chebotarev: the range of p used in the hypotheses is far smaller than the range needed to generate the class group, and no bound on the smallest prime ideals generating Cl(K) is proved. The step from equality of invariants to equality of Artin symbols is also unexplained, especially because the invariants are trivial modulo 1 for all split primes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The displayed formula for kappa_p(K) in the abstract and in the notation table has missing parentheses in the LaTeX source; the intended expression should be log_p(epsilon_{St,p}/sigma(epsilon_{St,p})) mod p^{ord_p(Delta_K)}.
  2. [Section 3.2, Example 1] The example also states ord_5(916)=1 for K_2=Q(sqrt(229)), but 5 does not divide 916, so this is again incorrect; the example cannot illustrate the claimed discriminating power.
  3. [Section 5.2] The 'Sigma-Secure protocol' is an encryption scheme, not a sigma protocol in the standard cryptographic sense; the terminology is likely to mislead readers.
  4. [Section 5.1 and Table 3] The comparison with CRYSTALS-Kyber, NTRU, and McEliece is presented as if it were a security-level comparison, but no concrete parameter generation or implementation is given; the key-size numbers in Table 3 are not derived in the manuscript.
  5. [References] Reference [8], on quantum-classical hybrid algorithms for LWE on NISQ devices, does not appear to support the class group or Stark-unit content for which it is invoked in the Introduction.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The Stark-Coleman invariant is vacuous by construction: Eq. (23) restricts to split primes, for which p∤Δ_K so ord_p(Δ_K)=0 and κ_p(K)≡0 mod 1, making Theorem 2's criterion trivially true for every pair of fields; separately, Eq. (5) merely restates definition (2).

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Eqs. (2) and (5)]
    "εSt,p = expp(L′p(0, χD)) (2) ... logp(εSt,p) = L′p(0, χD) (5) yielding the p-adic analogue of Stark's conjecture [12]."

    Eq. (5) is not a derived analytic continuation or a conjecture; it is the immediate inverse definition, since εSt,p is defined in Eq. (2) as expp of L′p(0, χD). The properties actually needed downstream—the valuation ord_p(εSt,p)=λ_p(χSt) in Eq. (3) and the Galois equivariance σ(εSt,p)=ε^{χ(σ)}_{St,p} in Eq. (4)—are asserted without derivation from the definition. Thus the 'enhanced Stark unit' carries no independent content beyond the p-adic L-derivative, and every later invariant built from it inherits that definitional collapse.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2, Eq. (23) and Theorem 2]
    "For a prime p that splits in K (pO_K = p1p2), define ... κp(K) := log_p( εSt,p / σ(εSt,p) ) mod p^{ord_p(Δ_K)} (23) ... Theorem 2 ... Cl(K1) ≅ Cl(K2) ⇐⇒ κp(K1)=κp(K2) ∀ p < log log max(D1,D2) (24)"

    By the theorem's own restriction, κ_p(K) is defined only for primes p that split in K. A split prime is unramified, so p∤Δ_K and hence ord_p(Δ_K)=0. The modulus in Eq. (23) is therefore p^0 = 1, and every κ_p(K) is identically 0 modulo 1. Consequently the right-hand side of (24) is automatically true for every pair of fields D1,D2 > 10^32, regardless of their class groups. The claimed equivalence cannot classify anything; it is true vacuously by construction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 3.2, Example 1]
    "For K1 = Q(√101) (h=7), K2 = Q(√229) (h=15): ΔK1 = 404 ⇒ ord5(ΔK1) = 1 ... κ5(K1) = log_p( εSt,p / σ(εSt,p) ) mod 5 = 2 ... κ5(K2) = ... mod 5 = 4"

    The example contradicts the definition it is meant to illustrate. Since 5 splits in Q(√101) and 5∤404, p∤Δ_K1 gives ord_5(Δ_K1)=0, not 1. The text nevertheless reduces the invariant modulo 5. This is not a matter of missing numerical computation; it shows that the authors are implicitly using a nonzero modulus for exactly those split primes for which Eq. (23) gives modulus p^0=1. The claimed discriminative power '2≠4 mod 5' is therefore not supported by the paper's own definition of κ_p(K).

full rationale

The central classification claim reduces to its own definition. In Eq. (2), εSt,p is defined as expp(L′p(0,χD)), so the logarithmic identity (5) is tautological, and the valuation and Galois-equivariance properties (3)-(4) are asserted rather than derived. More decisively, Eq. (23) defines κ_p(K) only for primes p that split in K. For a split prime p, p is unramified, so p∤Δ_K and ord_p(Δ_K)=0; the modulus is p^0=1, making κ_p(K) identically 0 mod 1. Thus the condition 'κ_p(K1)=κ_p(K2) for all p<log log max(D1,D2)' in Theorem 2 holds automatically for every pair of real quadratic fields, independent of any Stark-unit conjecture. The claimed isomorphism criterion is vacuous, so the stated resolution of the isomorphism problem is unsupported. Example 1 shows the same collapse: it assigns ord_5(404)=1 and reduces modulo 5 even though 5∤404. These are not speculative concerns but direct consequences of the paper's displayed equations. The quantum lower bound in Theorem 4 is separate and is not itself definitional, but it relies on Theorem 3 and on a class-number lower bound that is not established in the paper; the classification framework that motivates the paper's title is nonetheless circular/vacuous. The self-citation component is minor; the dominant problem is the definitional triviality of κ_p(K). A score of 8 reflects that the central claimed theorem reduces by construction, even though some peripheral material (e.g., the quantum walk argument) has independent form.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumed Stark-unit properties, an unproved class number lower bound, and a GRH-conditional framework. The free parameters include the discriminant threshold and the prime range for the invariant. The invariant itself is trivial for split primes, so the main burden falls on the assumed existence of enhanced Stark units with very strong properties.

free parameters (3)
  • Discriminant threshold 10^32 = 10^32
    Theorems 2, 4, and 5 apply only for D > 10^32; the cutoff is stated without derivation. It is a hand-chosen threshold for the claimed effective estimates.
  • Prime range p < log log max(D1,D2) = log log D
    Theorem 2 requires invariant equality for all primes below this bound. The proof does not show this range generates the class group or determines the L-values; it is a chosen range to make the criterion finite.
  • Arbitrary epsilon in spectral gap and lower bound constant c = log 2 * epsilon = epsilon > 0, c = log 2 * epsilon
    Theorem 3 states Delta >= h^{-1+epsilon} for any epsilon > 0, and Theorem 4 sets c = log 2 * epsilon. Since epsilon is arbitrary, the exponential lower bound has no definite constant; this is a free parameter of the asymptotic statement.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Generalized Riemann Hypothesis for Dirichlet L-functions and Dedekind zeta functions
    Assumed throughout; used for prime ideal distribution, class group computation, and spectral gap in Sections 2.5 and 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of enhanced Stark units epsilon_{St,p} satisfying ord_p(epsilon_{St,p}) = lambda_p(chi_St) and Galois equivariance sigma(epsilon_{St,p}) = epsilon^{chi(sigma)}_{St,p}
    Section 2.2, Eqs (3)-(4). The paper defines epsilon_{St,p} = exp_p(L'_p(0,chi_D)) and then asserts these Stark-unit properties without proof; this is effectively a p-adic Stark conjecture.
  • ad hoc to paper p-adic Hodge isomorphism Cl(K) tensor Q_p is isomorphic to H^1_f(G_K, Q_p(1))^vee
    Section 2.4, Eq (13). This is asserted as a fundamental isomorphism but is not a standard consequence of D_{pst}; since Cl(K) is finite, the Q_p tensor is zero, so the isomorphism as written is suspect.
  • domain assumption Iwasawa main conjecture providing inverse limit isomorphism lim_proj Cl(K)[p^n] is isomorphic to Ext^1_{Z_p}(T_p(A), mu_{p^infty})
    Section 3.1, Step 3. The cited reference [3] is an analytic number theory textbook, not a proof of the Iwasawa main conjecture; this isomorphism is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Class number lower bound h(K) >= exp(log 2 * log D / (log log D)^2) for D > 10^32
    Section 4.2, Eq (39). Labeled 'Effective bound' and cited to Neukirch [9], but no proof or theorem number is given; this bound is the main input to the quantum lower bound and is not established.
  • domain assumption Chebotarev generation: primes with N(p) < log^3 D generate Cl(K)
    Section 3.2, Theorem 2 (reverse direction). Under GRH such prime ideal bounds are standard, but the paper then reasons about rational primes p < log log D, a much smaller set, so the generation premise does not connect to the invariant range.
invented entities (2)
  • Enhanced Stark unit epsilon_{St,p}
    purpose: Defined as exp_p(L'_p(0,chi_D)) and asserted to be a Stark unit with Galois and valuation properties; used to define kappa_p and the class group embedding.
    No construction outside this paper is provided. The claimed properties (Eqs 3-4) are conjectural and not verified; no numerical value is computed for any field.
  • Stark-Coleman invariant kappa_p(K)
    purpose: Proposed invariant claimed to classify class groups up to isomorphism.
    The invariant has no external falsifiable handle: its equality is the classification criterion itself, and it is trivial modulo 1 for every split prime, so it cannot distinguish class groups.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stark-Coleman Invariants and Quantum Lower Bounds: An Integrated Framework for Real Quadratic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QC6KOSOK

@misc{pith2026250607640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stark-Coleman Invariants and Quantum Lower Bounds: An Integrated Framework for Real Quadratic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QC6KOSOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07640}
}
abstract

Class groups of real quadratic fields represent fundamental structures in algebraic number theory with significant computational implications. While Stark's conjecture establishes theoretical connections between special units and class group structures, explicit constructions have remained elusive, and precise quantum complexity bounds for class group computations are lacking. Here we establish an integrated framework defining Stark-Coleman invariants $\kappa_p(K) = \log_p \left( \frac{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p}}{\sigma(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{St},p})} \right) \mod p^{\mathrm{ord}_p(\Delta_K)}$ through a synthesis of $p$-adic Hodge theory and extended Coleman integration. We prove these invariants classify class groups under the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH), resolving the isomorphism problem for discriminants $D > 10^{32}$. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this approach yields the quantum lower bound $\exp\left(\Omega\left(\frac{\log D}{(\log \log D)^2}\right)\right)$ for the class group discrete logarithm problem, improving upon previous bounds lacking explicit constants. Our results indicate that Stark units constrain the geometric organization of class groups, providing theoretical insight into computational complexity barriers.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Neukirch, Jürgen,Algebraic Number Theory, Springer, Berlin, 1999. 14

    work page 1999

  2. [5]

    Comput.37(1) (2007), 210–239

    Ambainis, Andris,Quantum Walk Algorithm for Element Distinctness, SIAM J. Comput.37(1) (2007), 210–239

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    Biasse, Jean-François and Song, Fang,Efficient quantum algorithms for comput- ing class groups and solving the principal ideal problem in arbitrary degree number fields, J. Math. Cryptol.8(2014), 1–29

    work page 2014

  4. [1]

    Stark, Harold M.,L-Functions ats= 1. IV. First Derivatives ats= 0, Adv. Math.35(1980), 197–235

    work page 1980

  5. [3]

    Iwaniec, Henryk and Kowalski, Emmanuel,Analytic Number Theory, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [4]

    Cohen, Henri,Advanced Topics in Computational Number Theory, Springer, New York, 2000

    work page 2000

  7. [6]

    Childs, Andrew and Jao, David and Soukharev, Vladimir,Constructing elliptic curve isogenies in quantum subexponential time, J. Math. Cryptol.8(2014), 1–29

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Comput.26(5) (1997), 1484–1509

    Shor, Peter W.,Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Dis- crete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer, SIAM J. Comput.26(5) (1997), 1484–1509

    work page 1997

Show all 16 references
  1. [8]

    Phys.8(2025), 208

    Zheng, Muxi and Zeng, Jinfeng and Yang, Wentao and Chang, Pei-Jie and Lu, Quanfeng and Yan, Bao and Zhang, Haoran and Wang, Min and Wei, Shi Jie and Long, Gui-Lu,Quantum-classical hybrid algorithm for solving the learning- with-errors problem on NISQ devices, Commun. Phys.8(2025), 208

    2025

  2. [10]

    Comp.74(252) (2005), 2017–2026

    Buchmann, Johannes and Schmidt, Arthur,Computing the Structure of a Finite Abelian Group, Math. Comp.74(252) (2005), 2017–2026

    2005

  3. [11]

    Math.121(1) (1985), 111–168

    Coleman, Robert F.,Torsion Points on Curves andp-Adic Abelian Integrals, Ann. Math.121(1) (1985), 111–168

    1985

  4. [12]

    H.,On the values of abelian L-functions ats= 0, J

    Gross, B. H.,On the values of abelian L-functions ats= 0, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA, Math.35(1988), 177–197. Appendix A Generalized Riemann Hypothesis Foundations A.1 Definition and Core Implications The Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH) postulates that for any Diri...

    1988

  5. [13]

    Within our theoretical framework, GRH enables three fundamental components:

    For the Dedekind zeta functionζK(s) = Q p(1−N(p) −s)−1 of a number fieldK, this implies all non-trivial zeros satisfyℜ(s) = 1 2. Within our theoretical framework, GRH enables three fundamental components:

  6. [14]

    Prime ideal distribution: πK(x)− x logx ≤C √xlog(xD)

  7. [15]

    Class group computation complexity: Time=eO(|D|1/4)in theoretical models

  8. [16]

    Spectral gap control:∆> h(K)−1+ϵ These collectively establish the theoretical foundation for our main results. A.2 Theoretical Implications Without GRH In the absence of GRH, our framework yields weaker but still significant results: Theorem 6(GRH-Independent Classification)Fo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.