Method to test if a number is a perfect power?












4












$begingroup$


Is there a general method for testing numbers to see if they are perfect $n$th powers?



For example, suppose that I did not know that $121$ was a perfect square. A naive test in a code might be to see if
$$lfloorsqrt{121}rfloor=sqrt{121}$$



But I imagine there are much more efficient ways of doing this (if I'm working with numbers with many digits).










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One very cheap, necessary condition is that $x^2pmod 4equiv 0,1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Are you given numbers $k$ and $n$ and asked to check whether $k$ is an $n$-th power? Or are you given just $k$ and asked to check whether $k$ is a perfect power?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Servaes, I was considering the first case, where I know both k and n and trying to see if $k = a^n,$ a a positive integer.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wait, @Alex R. Looking at your first comment, what about $x^2 = 40 = 0 (mod 4)$. Yet, $40$ is not a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @D.B.: Hence it's a necessary condition: if $x^2$ is a perfect square, then $x^2equiv 0,1pmod{4}$. The other direction gives: if $yequiv 2,3pmod{4}$, then $y$ cannot be a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago


















4












$begingroup$


Is there a general method for testing numbers to see if they are perfect $n$th powers?



For example, suppose that I did not know that $121$ was a perfect square. A naive test in a code might be to see if
$$lfloorsqrt{121}rfloor=sqrt{121}$$



But I imagine there are much more efficient ways of doing this (if I'm working with numbers with many digits).










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One very cheap, necessary condition is that $x^2pmod 4equiv 0,1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Are you given numbers $k$ and $n$ and asked to check whether $k$ is an $n$-th power? Or are you given just $k$ and asked to check whether $k$ is a perfect power?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Servaes, I was considering the first case, where I know both k and n and trying to see if $k = a^n,$ a a positive integer.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wait, @Alex R. Looking at your first comment, what about $x^2 = 40 = 0 (mod 4)$. Yet, $40$ is not a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @D.B.: Hence it's a necessary condition: if $x^2$ is a perfect square, then $x^2equiv 0,1pmod{4}$. The other direction gives: if $yequiv 2,3pmod{4}$, then $y$ cannot be a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago
















4












4








4


2



$begingroup$


Is there a general method for testing numbers to see if they are perfect $n$th powers?



For example, suppose that I did not know that $121$ was a perfect square. A naive test in a code might be to see if
$$lfloorsqrt{121}rfloor=sqrt{121}$$



But I imagine there are much more efficient ways of doing this (if I'm working with numbers with many digits).










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Is there a general method for testing numbers to see if they are perfect $n$th powers?



For example, suppose that I did not know that $121$ was a perfect square. A naive test in a code might be to see if
$$lfloorsqrt{121}rfloor=sqrt{121}$$



But I imagine there are much more efficient ways of doing this (if I'm working with numbers with many digits).







number-theory perfect-powers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Chase Ryan Taylor

4,45021531




4,45021531










asked 2 hours ago









D.B.D.B.

1,29518




1,29518








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One very cheap, necessary condition is that $x^2pmod 4equiv 0,1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Are you given numbers $k$ and $n$ and asked to check whether $k$ is an $n$-th power? Or are you given just $k$ and asked to check whether $k$ is a perfect power?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Servaes, I was considering the first case, where I know both k and n and trying to see if $k = a^n,$ a a positive integer.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wait, @Alex R. Looking at your first comment, what about $x^2 = 40 = 0 (mod 4)$. Yet, $40$ is not a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @D.B.: Hence it's a necessary condition: if $x^2$ is a perfect square, then $x^2equiv 0,1pmod{4}$. The other direction gives: if $yequiv 2,3pmod{4}$, then $y$ cannot be a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One very cheap, necessary condition is that $x^2pmod 4equiv 0,1$.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Are you given numbers $k$ and $n$ and asked to check whether $k$ is an $n$-th power? Or are you given just $k$ and asked to check whether $k$ is a perfect power?
    $endgroup$
    – Servaes
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Servaes, I was considering the first case, where I know both k and n and trying to see if $k = a^n,$ a a positive integer.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    Wait, @Alex R. Looking at your first comment, what about $x^2 = 40 = 0 (mod 4)$. Yet, $40$ is not a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – D.B.
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @D.B.: Hence it's a necessary condition: if $x^2$ is a perfect square, then $x^2equiv 0,1pmod{4}$. The other direction gives: if $yequiv 2,3pmod{4}$, then $y$ cannot be a perfect square.
    $endgroup$
    – Alex R.
    1 hour ago










1




1




$begingroup$
One very cheap, necessary condition is that $x^2pmod 4equiv 0,1$.
$endgroup$
– Alex R.
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
One very cheap, necessary condition is that $x^2pmod 4equiv 0,1$.
$endgroup$
– Alex R.
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
Are you given numbers $k$ and $n$ and asked to check whether $k$ is an $n$-th power? Or are you given just $k$ and asked to check whether $k$ is a perfect power?
$endgroup$
– Servaes
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Are you given numbers $k$ and $n$ and asked to check whether $k$ is an $n$-th power? Or are you given just $k$ and asked to check whether $k$ is a perfect power?
$endgroup$
– Servaes
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
@Servaes, I was considering the first case, where I know both k and n and trying to see if $k = a^n,$ a a positive integer.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
@Servaes, I was considering the first case, where I know both k and n and trying to see if $k = a^n,$ a a positive integer.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
1 hour ago












$begingroup$
Wait, @Alex R. Looking at your first comment, what about $x^2 = 40 = 0 (mod 4)$. Yet, $40$ is not a perfect square.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
1 hour ago




$begingroup$
Wait, @Alex R. Looking at your first comment, what about $x^2 = 40 = 0 (mod 4)$. Yet, $40$ is not a perfect square.
$endgroup$
– D.B.
1 hour ago




2




2




$begingroup$
@D.B.: Hence it's a necessary condition: if $x^2$ is a perfect square, then $x^2equiv 0,1pmod{4}$. The other direction gives: if $yequiv 2,3pmod{4}$, then $y$ cannot be a perfect square.
$endgroup$
– Alex R.
1 hour ago






$begingroup$
@D.B.: Hence it's a necessary condition: if $x^2$ is a perfect square, then $x^2equiv 0,1pmod{4}$. The other direction gives: if $yequiv 2,3pmod{4}$, then $y$ cannot be a perfect square.
$endgroup$
– Alex R.
1 hour ago












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

See Detecting perfect powers in essentially linear time - Daniel J. Bernstein:



https://cr.yp.to/papers/powers-ams.pdf






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    My suggestion on a computer is to run a root finder.



    Given a value $y$, one way is to hard-code the first couple and then use an integer-valued binary search starting with $y/2$, which is logarithmic in $y$ and thus linear (since input takes $ln y$.



    You can also write down the Newton's method recurrence and see if it converges to an integer or not, should become clear after the first couple of steps, once the error becomes small enough.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
      $endgroup$
      – Alex R.
      1 hour ago





















    0












    $begingroup$

    In the specific case where you already know not only the number being checked but also the power, as the question's comment by the OP to Servaes states, then you have something like



    $$k = a^n tag{1}label{eq1}$$



    where $k$ and $n$ are known integers, but with $a$ being an unknown value to check whether or not it's an integer. In this case, taking natural logarithms of both sides (you could use any base, but I suspect that implementation wise $e$ will likely at least be the fastest one, if not also the most accurate) gives



    $$ln(k) = nln(a) ; Rightarrow ; ln(a) = frac{ln(k)}{n} ; Rightarrow ; a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



    On a computer, this will give a floating point value that would be, even for large values of $k$, relatively close to the correct value of $a$.



    You can now use any number of algorithms to relatively quickly & easily determine $a$ if it's an integer, or show it's not an integer. For example, you can start with the integer part obtained in eqref{eq2}, call it $a_1$, to determine $k_1$. If $k_1$ is not correct, then if it's less than $k$, check $a_2 = a_1 + 1$, else check $a_2 = a_1 - 1$, and call the new result $k_2$. If $k_2$ is still not correct, add or subtract the integer amount (making sure it's at least 1) of $left|frac{k -k_2}{k_1 - k_2}right|$ to $a_2$ to get a new $a_1$ value to check. Then repeat these steps as many times as needed. In almost all cases, I believe it should take very loops to find the correct value. However, note you should also include checks in case there is no such integer $a$, with this usually being seen when one integer value gives a lower result & the next higher gives a higher result (or higher result & next lower integer gives a lower result).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
      $endgroup$
      – miracle173
      8 mins ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    There are many powerful codes that factorize a number to its prime factors in a non-polynomial time (for more information you can refer to Integer Factorization on Wikipedia) . Once an integer was factorized as follows$$n=p_1^{alpha_1}times p_2^{alpha_2}timescdots times p_m^{alpha_m}$$then by defining $d=gcd(alpha_1,alpha_2,cdots ,alpha_m)$ we can say that $n$ is a full $d$-th power.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
      $endgroup$
      – gt6989b
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
      $endgroup$
      – Arturo Magidin
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
      $endgroup$
      – Alex R.
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
      $endgroup$
      – MPW
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
      $endgroup$
      – Mostafa Ayaz
      1 hour ago



















    0












    $begingroup$

    It is at least possible to do this in polynomial time. Assume $n$ is a $k$-bit number and you want to find positive integers $a$ and $b$ such that $$a^b=ntag{1}$$ or prove that such numbers don't exists.



    We have $$n<2^k$$ because $n$ is a $k$-bit number and so $$blt k$$



    We can simply check for all possible $b$ if there is an $a$ such that $(1)$ holds. For given $b$ we can try to find $a$ by bisection. This bisection checks $O(log n)=O(k)$ different $a$. A check is the calculation of $a^b$. This can be achieved by multiplying powers of $a$ by $a$. These powers of $a$ are smaller than $n$. So we multiply $k$-bit numbers at most $b(lt k)$ times. A multiplication of two $k$-bit numbers needs $O(k^2)$ time. So all in all the algorithm needs $O(k^2)$ multiplications o $k$-bit numbers, which means $O(k^4)$ time.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3165146%2fmethod-to-test-if-a-number-is-a-perfect-power%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      6












      $begingroup$

      See Detecting perfect powers in essentially linear time - Daniel J. Bernstein:



      https://cr.yp.to/papers/powers-ams.pdf






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        6












        $begingroup$

        See Detecting perfect powers in essentially linear time - Daniel J. Bernstein:



        https://cr.yp.to/papers/powers-ams.pdf






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          See Detecting perfect powers in essentially linear time - Daniel J. Bernstein:



          https://cr.yp.to/papers/powers-ams.pdf






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          See Detecting perfect powers in essentially linear time - Daniel J. Bernstein:



          https://cr.yp.to/papers/powers-ams.pdf







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          Alex J BestAlex J Best

          2,32611226




          2,32611226























              0












              $begingroup$

              My suggestion on a computer is to run a root finder.



              Given a value $y$, one way is to hard-code the first couple and then use an integer-valued binary search starting with $y/2$, which is logarithmic in $y$ and thus linear (since input takes $ln y$.



              You can also write down the Newton's method recurrence and see if it converges to an integer or not, should become clear after the first couple of steps, once the error becomes small enough.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago


















              0












              $begingroup$

              My suggestion on a computer is to run a root finder.



              Given a value $y$, one way is to hard-code the first couple and then use an integer-valued binary search starting with $y/2$, which is logarithmic in $y$ and thus linear (since input takes $ln y$.



              You can also write down the Newton's method recurrence and see if it converges to an integer or not, should become clear after the first couple of steps, once the error becomes small enough.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago
















              0












              0








              0





              $begingroup$

              My suggestion on a computer is to run a root finder.



              Given a value $y$, one way is to hard-code the first couple and then use an integer-valued binary search starting with $y/2$, which is logarithmic in $y$ and thus linear (since input takes $ln y$.



              You can also write down the Newton's method recurrence and see if it converges to an integer or not, should become clear after the first couple of steps, once the error becomes small enough.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              My suggestion on a computer is to run a root finder.



              Given a value $y$, one way is to hard-code the first couple and then use an integer-valued binary search starting with $y/2$, which is logarithmic in $y$ and thus linear (since input takes $ln y$.



              You can also write down the Newton's method recurrence and see if it converges to an integer or not, should become clear after the first couple of steps, once the error becomes small enough.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered 1 hour ago









              gt6989bgt6989b

              35.1k22557




              35.1k22557












              • $begingroup$
                I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago




















              • $begingroup$
                I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago


















              $begingroup$
              I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex R.
              1 hour ago






              $begingroup$
              I don't think it's linear, given that you need to square the proposed number at every split.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex R.
              1 hour ago













              0












              $begingroup$

              In the specific case where you already know not only the number being checked but also the power, as the question's comment by the OP to Servaes states, then you have something like



              $$k = a^n tag{1}label{eq1}$$



              where $k$ and $n$ are known integers, but with $a$ being an unknown value to check whether or not it's an integer. In this case, taking natural logarithms of both sides (you could use any base, but I suspect that implementation wise $e$ will likely at least be the fastest one, if not also the most accurate) gives



              $$ln(k) = nln(a) ; Rightarrow ; ln(a) = frac{ln(k)}{n} ; Rightarrow ; a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



              On a computer, this will give a floating point value that would be, even for large values of $k$, relatively close to the correct value of $a$.



              You can now use any number of algorithms to relatively quickly & easily determine $a$ if it's an integer, or show it's not an integer. For example, you can start with the integer part obtained in eqref{eq2}, call it $a_1$, to determine $k_1$. If $k_1$ is not correct, then if it's less than $k$, check $a_2 = a_1 + 1$, else check $a_2 = a_1 - 1$, and call the new result $k_2$. If $k_2$ is still not correct, add or subtract the integer amount (making sure it's at least 1) of $left|frac{k -k_2}{k_1 - k_2}right|$ to $a_2$ to get a new $a_1$ value to check. Then repeat these steps as many times as needed. In almost all cases, I believe it should take very loops to find the correct value. However, note you should also include checks in case there is no such integer $a$, with this usually being seen when one integer value gives a lower result & the next higher gives a higher result (or higher result & next lower integer gives a lower result).






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
                $endgroup$
                – miracle173
                8 mins ago
















              0












              $begingroup$

              In the specific case where you already know not only the number being checked but also the power, as the question's comment by the OP to Servaes states, then you have something like



              $$k = a^n tag{1}label{eq1}$$



              where $k$ and $n$ are known integers, but with $a$ being an unknown value to check whether or not it's an integer. In this case, taking natural logarithms of both sides (you could use any base, but I suspect that implementation wise $e$ will likely at least be the fastest one, if not also the most accurate) gives



              $$ln(k) = nln(a) ; Rightarrow ; ln(a) = frac{ln(k)}{n} ; Rightarrow ; a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



              On a computer, this will give a floating point value that would be, even for large values of $k$, relatively close to the correct value of $a$.



              You can now use any number of algorithms to relatively quickly & easily determine $a$ if it's an integer, or show it's not an integer. For example, you can start with the integer part obtained in eqref{eq2}, call it $a_1$, to determine $k_1$. If $k_1$ is not correct, then if it's less than $k$, check $a_2 = a_1 + 1$, else check $a_2 = a_1 - 1$, and call the new result $k_2$. If $k_2$ is still not correct, add or subtract the integer amount (making sure it's at least 1) of $left|frac{k -k_2}{k_1 - k_2}right|$ to $a_2$ to get a new $a_1$ value to check. Then repeat these steps as many times as needed. In almost all cases, I believe it should take very loops to find the correct value. However, note you should also include checks in case there is no such integer $a$, with this usually being seen when one integer value gives a lower result & the next higher gives a higher result (or higher result & next lower integer gives a lower result).






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
                $endgroup$
                – miracle173
                8 mins ago














              0












              0








              0





              $begingroup$

              In the specific case where you already know not only the number being checked but also the power, as the question's comment by the OP to Servaes states, then you have something like



              $$k = a^n tag{1}label{eq1}$$



              where $k$ and $n$ are known integers, but with $a$ being an unknown value to check whether or not it's an integer. In this case, taking natural logarithms of both sides (you could use any base, but I suspect that implementation wise $e$ will likely at least be the fastest one, if not also the most accurate) gives



              $$ln(k) = nln(a) ; Rightarrow ; ln(a) = frac{ln(k)}{n} ; Rightarrow ; a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



              On a computer, this will give a floating point value that would be, even for large values of $k$, relatively close to the correct value of $a$.



              You can now use any number of algorithms to relatively quickly & easily determine $a$ if it's an integer, or show it's not an integer. For example, you can start with the integer part obtained in eqref{eq2}, call it $a_1$, to determine $k_1$. If $k_1$ is not correct, then if it's less than $k$, check $a_2 = a_1 + 1$, else check $a_2 = a_1 - 1$, and call the new result $k_2$. If $k_2$ is still not correct, add or subtract the integer amount (making sure it's at least 1) of $left|frac{k -k_2}{k_1 - k_2}right|$ to $a_2$ to get a new $a_1$ value to check. Then repeat these steps as many times as needed. In almost all cases, I believe it should take very loops to find the correct value. However, note you should also include checks in case there is no such integer $a$, with this usually being seen when one integer value gives a lower result & the next higher gives a higher result (or higher result & next lower integer gives a lower result).






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              In the specific case where you already know not only the number being checked but also the power, as the question's comment by the OP to Servaes states, then you have something like



              $$k = a^n tag{1}label{eq1}$$



              where $k$ and $n$ are known integers, but with $a$ being an unknown value to check whether or not it's an integer. In this case, taking natural logarithms of both sides (you could use any base, but I suspect that implementation wise $e$ will likely at least be the fastest one, if not also the most accurate) gives



              $$ln(k) = nln(a) ; Rightarrow ; ln(a) = frac{ln(k)}{n} ; Rightarrow ; a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}} tag{2}label{eq2}$$



              On a computer, this will give a floating point value that would be, even for large values of $k$, relatively close to the correct value of $a$.



              You can now use any number of algorithms to relatively quickly & easily determine $a$ if it's an integer, or show it's not an integer. For example, you can start with the integer part obtained in eqref{eq2}, call it $a_1$, to determine $k_1$. If $k_1$ is not correct, then if it's less than $k$, check $a_2 = a_1 + 1$, else check $a_2 = a_1 - 1$, and call the new result $k_2$. If $k_2$ is still not correct, add or subtract the integer amount (making sure it's at least 1) of $left|frac{k -k_2}{k_1 - k_2}right|$ to $a_2$ to get a new $a_1$ value to check. Then repeat these steps as many times as needed. In almost all cases, I believe it should take very loops to find the correct value. However, note you should also include checks in case there is no such integer $a$, with this usually being seen when one integer value gives a lower result & the next higher gives a higher result (or higher result & next lower integer gives a lower result).







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited 37 mins ago

























              answered 45 mins ago









              John OmielanJohn Omielan

              4,2062215




              4,2062215












              • $begingroup$
                you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
                $endgroup$
                – miracle173
                8 mins ago


















              • $begingroup$
                you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
                $endgroup$
                – miracle173
                8 mins ago
















              $begingroup$
              you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
              $endgroup$
              – miracle173
              8 mins ago




              $begingroup$
              you skip important steps of your algorithm. How do you calculate $a = e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$. What is the time and space complexity of this calculation? How big is the difference of the exact value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$ and the calculated value of $e^{frac{ln(k)}{n}}$? Without calculating all this bounds it is not possible to decide if the algorithm is efficient.
              $endgroup$
              – miracle173
              8 mins ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              There are many powerful codes that factorize a number to its prime factors in a non-polynomial time (for more information you can refer to Integer Factorization on Wikipedia) . Once an integer was factorized as follows$$n=p_1^{alpha_1}times p_2^{alpha_2}timescdots times p_m^{alpha_m}$$then by defining $d=gcd(alpha_1,alpha_2,cdots ,alpha_m)$ we can say that $n$ is a full $d$-th power.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
                $endgroup$
                – gt6989b
                1 hour ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
                $endgroup$
                – Arturo Magidin
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
                $endgroup$
                – MPW
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
                $endgroup$
                – Mostafa Ayaz
                1 hour ago
















              0












              $begingroup$

              There are many powerful codes that factorize a number to its prime factors in a non-polynomial time (for more information you can refer to Integer Factorization on Wikipedia) . Once an integer was factorized as follows$$n=p_1^{alpha_1}times p_2^{alpha_2}timescdots times p_m^{alpha_m}$$then by defining $d=gcd(alpha_1,alpha_2,cdots ,alpha_m)$ we can say that $n$ is a full $d$-th power.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
                $endgroup$
                – gt6989b
                1 hour ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
                $endgroup$
                – Arturo Magidin
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
                $endgroup$
                – MPW
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
                $endgroup$
                – Mostafa Ayaz
                1 hour ago














              0












              0








              0





              $begingroup$

              There are many powerful codes that factorize a number to its prime factors in a non-polynomial time (for more information you can refer to Integer Factorization on Wikipedia) . Once an integer was factorized as follows$$n=p_1^{alpha_1}times p_2^{alpha_2}timescdots times p_m^{alpha_m}$$then by defining $d=gcd(alpha_1,alpha_2,cdots ,alpha_m)$ we can say that $n$ is a full $d$-th power.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              There are many powerful codes that factorize a number to its prime factors in a non-polynomial time (for more information you can refer to Integer Factorization on Wikipedia) . Once an integer was factorized as follows$$n=p_1^{alpha_1}times p_2^{alpha_2}timescdots times p_m^{alpha_m}$$then by defining $d=gcd(alpha_1,alpha_2,cdots ,alpha_m)$ we can say that $n$ is a full $d$-th power.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited 37 mins ago

























              answered 1 hour ago









              Mostafa AyazMostafa Ayaz

              18.1k31040




              18.1k31040












              • $begingroup$
                not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
                $endgroup$
                – gt6989b
                1 hour ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
                $endgroup$
                – Arturo Magidin
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
                $endgroup$
                – MPW
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
                $endgroup$
                – Mostafa Ayaz
                1 hour ago


















              • $begingroup$
                not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
                $endgroup$
                – gt6989b
                1 hour ago






              • 2




                $begingroup$
                For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
                $endgroup$
                – Arturo Magidin
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
                $endgroup$
                – Alex R.
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
                $endgroup$
                – MPW
                1 hour ago










              • $begingroup$
                I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
                $endgroup$
                – Mostafa Ayaz
                1 hour ago
















              $begingroup$
              not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
              $endgroup$
              – gt6989b
              1 hour ago




              $begingroup$
              not sure about efficient, I believe it's an NP-complete problem. But surely checking if it is a perfect square would be doable more efficiently that doing the full prime factorization?!
              $endgroup$
              – gt6989b
              1 hour ago




              2




              2




              $begingroup$
              For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
              $endgroup$
              – Arturo Magidin
              1 hour ago




              $begingroup$
              For algorithms, "efficiently and fast" usually means being both deterministic and polynomial time in the length of the input; there is no known polynomial time deterministic algorithm for factoring integers, so I would absolutely quibble with your use of "efficiently and fast".
              $endgroup$
              – Arturo Magidin
              1 hour ago












              $begingroup$
              This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex R.
              1 hour ago




              $begingroup$
              This is orders-of-magnitude slower than just computing the square-root even by classical methods.
              $endgroup$
              – Alex R.
              1 hour ago












              $begingroup$
              I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
              $endgroup$
              – MPW
              1 hour ago




              $begingroup$
              I was going to suggest that if you factorize $n>1$ as you have shown, with all of the $p_i$ distinct and all of the $alpha_i>0$, then $n$ is a perfect power if and only if all of the $alpha_i$ are equal.
              $endgroup$
              – MPW
              1 hour ago












              $begingroup$
              I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
              $endgroup$
              – Mostafa Ayaz
              1 hour ago




              $begingroup$
              I mean the most efficient that is possible so far
              $endgroup$
              – Mostafa Ayaz
              1 hour ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              It is at least possible to do this in polynomial time. Assume $n$ is a $k$-bit number and you want to find positive integers $a$ and $b$ such that $$a^b=ntag{1}$$ or prove that such numbers don't exists.



              We have $$n<2^k$$ because $n$ is a $k$-bit number and so $$blt k$$



              We can simply check for all possible $b$ if there is an $a$ such that $(1)$ holds. For given $b$ we can try to find $a$ by bisection. This bisection checks $O(log n)=O(k)$ different $a$. A check is the calculation of $a^b$. This can be achieved by multiplying powers of $a$ by $a$. These powers of $a$ are smaller than $n$. So we multiply $k$-bit numbers at most $b(lt k)$ times. A multiplication of two $k$-bit numbers needs $O(k^2)$ time. So all in all the algorithm needs $O(k^2)$ multiplications o $k$-bit numbers, which means $O(k^4)$ time.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                It is at least possible to do this in polynomial time. Assume $n$ is a $k$-bit number and you want to find positive integers $a$ and $b$ such that $$a^b=ntag{1}$$ or prove that such numbers don't exists.



                We have $$n<2^k$$ because $n$ is a $k$-bit number and so $$blt k$$



                We can simply check for all possible $b$ if there is an $a$ such that $(1)$ holds. For given $b$ we can try to find $a$ by bisection. This bisection checks $O(log n)=O(k)$ different $a$. A check is the calculation of $a^b$. This can be achieved by multiplying powers of $a$ by $a$. These powers of $a$ are smaller than $n$. So we multiply $k$-bit numbers at most $b(lt k)$ times. A multiplication of two $k$-bit numbers needs $O(k^2)$ time. So all in all the algorithm needs $O(k^2)$ multiplications o $k$-bit numbers, which means $O(k^4)$ time.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  It is at least possible to do this in polynomial time. Assume $n$ is a $k$-bit number and you want to find positive integers $a$ and $b$ such that $$a^b=ntag{1}$$ or prove that such numbers don't exists.



                  We have $$n<2^k$$ because $n$ is a $k$-bit number and so $$blt k$$



                  We can simply check for all possible $b$ if there is an $a$ such that $(1)$ holds. For given $b$ we can try to find $a$ by bisection. This bisection checks $O(log n)=O(k)$ different $a$. A check is the calculation of $a^b$. This can be achieved by multiplying powers of $a$ by $a$. These powers of $a$ are smaller than $n$. So we multiply $k$-bit numbers at most $b(lt k)$ times. A multiplication of two $k$-bit numbers needs $O(k^2)$ time. So all in all the algorithm needs $O(k^2)$ multiplications o $k$-bit numbers, which means $O(k^4)$ time.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  It is at least possible to do this in polynomial time. Assume $n$ is a $k$-bit number and you want to find positive integers $a$ and $b$ such that $$a^b=ntag{1}$$ or prove that such numbers don't exists.



                  We have $$n<2^k$$ because $n$ is a $k$-bit number and so $$blt k$$



                  We can simply check for all possible $b$ if there is an $a$ such that $(1)$ holds. For given $b$ we can try to find $a$ by bisection. This bisection checks $O(log n)=O(k)$ different $a$. A check is the calculation of $a^b$. This can be achieved by multiplying powers of $a$ by $a$. These powers of $a$ are smaller than $n$. So we multiply $k$-bit numbers at most $b(lt k)$ times. A multiplication of two $k$-bit numbers needs $O(k^2)$ time. So all in all the algorithm needs $O(k^2)$ multiplications o $k$-bit numbers, which means $O(k^4)$ time.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 36 mins ago









                  miracle173miracle173

                  7,38022247




                  7,38022247






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3165146%2fmethod-to-test-if-a-number-is-a-perfect-power%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

                      What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029