Re: Size of a new hash standard

From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress_at_nowhere.org)
Date: 09/25/04

  • Next message: Joe Peschel: "Re: a new very fast hash algorithm (160 bits), with a technique of "overlapping sums""
    Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:49:09 GMT
    
    

    Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    > Bryan Olson wrote:
    >> Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
    >> > I can't comment on the philosophical issue involved. But in
    >> > a recent thread 'A basic question about hashing' I sketched
    >> > two schemes using bijective polynomials with degrees of,
    >> > say, 3 or higher mod 2^n (n being the block size), which
    >> > (at least in my intuitive view) should be hard to invert.
    >> > I think that the second scheme there could in fact be quite
    >> > viable (a part of the first scheme could eventually be
    >> > incorporated too.)
    >>
    >> Are these views based on anything, or are they just un-informed
    >> guesses, like your previous schemes?
    >
    > They are intuitive, somehow (i.e. a little bit) supported in
    > my own mind by what I knew about the difficulties of dealing
    > with polynomial equations in reals (that's an analogical
    > reasoning, rather ad hoc). Is that exteremely bad as an
    > idea as such?

    Certainly not appropriate for a sci group. This method of
    guessing one problem is like another has failed you over and
    over before. (Plus in this case, it seems you didn't even
    bother to look up the problem. Degree three or higher?)

    > (If you think so, then please ignore it, as
    > I repeatedly said elsewhere to you.)

    Don't you think newer readers deserve some kind of warning?
    They might not yet know what your name on a post means.

    -- 
    --Bryan
    

  • Next message: Joe Peschel: "Re: a new very fast hash algorithm (160 bits), with a technique of "overlapping sums""