1. programming required) Implement the Miller–Rabin primality test (see p. 742) in a language of your choice. 2. In our encryption/decryption scheme for one-time pads, we used exclusive or: plaintext...

1. programming required) Implement the Miller–Rabin primality test (see p. 742) in a language of your choice.

2. In our encryption/decryption scheme for one-time pads, we used exclusive or: plaintext m was encrypted as m ⊕ k, and ciphertext c was decrypted as c ⊕ k. Because (m ⊕ k) ⊕ k is logically equivalent to m, Bob always recovers the original plaintext. But there are actually three other Boolean operators that we could have used instead of ⊕—that is, there are three other connectives ◦ such that (m ◦ k) ◦ k ≡ m. (See Figure 4.31.) Identify those three other connectives. Why are these three connectives either uninteresting or actively bad choices as alternatives to ⊕?