Score:1

Ring LWE distribution definitions

ru flag

This may be a stupid question but I've been stuck on parsing these definitions for a while.

I am reading the paper "On Ideal Lattices and Learning with Errors Over Rings" by Lyubashevsky, Peikert, and Regev. I am trying to understand the error distributions they are proposing. In section 3, they define a set $\mathbb T = K_{\mathbb R}/R^V$ where $K$ is any number field and $K_{\mathbb R}$ is $K \otimes_{\mathbb Q} \mathbb R$, $R$ is its ring of integers, and $R^V$ is the dual module of $R$. I am a little unsure on how we are defining $\mathbb T$.

First, can we view $R^V$ as a submodule of $K_{\mathbb R}$ by looking at its image under inclusion? ie, are we really supposed to be looking at $K_{\mathbb R}/\iota(R^V)$ where $\iota: K \to K \otimes_{\mathbb Q} \mathbb R$ sending $x \mapsto x \otimes 1$?

Second, what kind of structure are we viewing $\mathbb T$ as? ie is $\mathbb T$ a $\mathbb Q$ vector space? I know $R^V$ has a natural $\mathbb Z$ module structure as it is a fractional ideal, but it seems weird to view $K_{\mathbb R}$ as a $\mathbb Z$ module.

Finally in definition 3.1 (their definition of the ring-lwe distribution), they state a ring-lwe sample is of the form $(a,b = as/q + e \pmod {modR^V})$? I am struggling to see how to view $b$ as an element of $K_{\mathbb R}$.

I apologize if these are "obvious" questions and I would really appreciate some clarification.

Thanks!

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.