Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:53:17 -0500
In article <k1hcj.12858$vd4.5964@pd7urf1no>,
roberson@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Walter Roberson) wrote:
In article <uvgcj.20007$wy2.19474@edtnps90>,
Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Sebastian G." <seppi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Barry Margolin wrote:
How could the hash possibly be guaranteed to be unique?
For a limited set of inputs, this is very easy.
Yes. then it is not a hash. It may be an encryption, or a translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_hash_function
http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/perfect.html
"Minimal perfect hashing"
I've never seen Perfect Hashing referred to as an encryption or
translation, only ever as a "hash function".
These are not the kind of hashing that the OP is talking about. He's
asking about cryptographic hashes, which are claimed to be
non-reversible. In this case, an important reason for the
non-reversibility is that they're many-to-one.
The word "hash" is used in a number of different contexts in computer
science, you have to be careful not to confuse them.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Sebastian G.
- Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- References:
- Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Randell_D
- Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Barry Margolin
- Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Sebastian G.
- Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Unruh
- Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- From: Walter Roberson
- Why unhashing is not possible?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- Next by Date: Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- Next by thread: Re: Why unhashing is not possible?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|