On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 07:59:21PM +0200, Maxime Devos wrote: > > On 13/04/2025 19:47, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 07:03:56PM +0200, Maxime Devos wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > Typical hashing of the non-cryptographic kind aren't designed to > > > > virtually eliminate hash collisions [...] > > Nit: given a "reasonable" hash, the collision probability should be > > the same for crypto or non-crypto hash (for the same width, for "random" > > input). [...] > > Many hashes aren't reasonable, then.When looking at documents describing the > quality of (non-crypto) string hash functions, you can sometimes see > discussion about how certain hash values are unreachable and how to choose > parameters such that hashes are more 'spread out' (and hence, making > collisions less common), trade-offs between speed of hashing and risk of > collision ...
Oh, there are quite a few "good" non cryptographic hash functions [1]. Of course, it's possible to contrive an input for which they do fail. Cheers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cryptographic_hash_function -- t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
