<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-08-20T01:45:03Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="8896" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:8896</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-03-06T10:43:41Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>Making Squares - Sieves, Smooth Numbers, Cores and Random Xorsat (Keynote Speakers)</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Bollobás, Béla</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>integer factorization</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>perfect square</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>random graph process</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>Since the advent of fast computers, much attention has been paid to practical factoring algorithms. Several of these algorithms set out to find two squares x^2, y^2 that are congruent modulo the number n we wish to factor, and are non-trivial in the sense that x is not equivalent to +/- y mod n. In 1994, this prompted Pomerance to ask the following question.
Let a_1, a_2, ... be random integers, chosen independently and uniformly from a set {1, ... x}. Let N be the smallest index such that {a_1, ... , a_N} contains a subsequence, the product of whose elements is a perfect square. What can you say about this random number N? In particular, give bounds N_0 and N_1 such that P(N_0 &lt;= N &lt;= N_1)-&gt; 1 as x -&gt; infty. Pomerance also gave bounds N_0 and N_1 with log N_0 ~ log N_1.
In 2012, Croot, Granville, Pemantle and Tetali significantly improved these bounds of Pomerance, bringing them within a constant of each other, and conjectured that their upper bound is sharp. In a recent paper, Paul Balister, Rob Morris and I have proved this conjecture. In the talk I shall review some related results and sketch some of the ideas used in our proof.</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Béla Bollobás</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of LIPIcs, Volume 110, 29th International Conference on Probabilistic, Combinatorial and Asymptotic Methods for the Analysis of Algorithms (AofA 2018)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.AofA.2018.3</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-88967</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.AofA.2018.3</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
