On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:47:06AM +0000, hru...@gmail.com wrote: > Andreas Gunnarsson <o-m...@zzlevo.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 01:46:20PM +0000, hru...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Raimo, if people believe that hash(A)=hash(B) implies A=B, so strong > > > believe, that they use it in their programs, > > > > It's a matter of engineering. Usually that is good enough. > > > > If you don't think it's good enough then you should probably also worry > > about how often strcmp(a, b) returns 0 when strings a and b don't match. > > No, that is not good enough, that is not good, that is very bad. The > probability of A=B under the condition hash(A)=hash(B) is close > to zero, not to one as Marc Espie & Co are telling here. Please, read
You are again contradicting accepted knowledge without any motivation. You can not go on doing that. It offends people. > my answer to Henning Brauer from Wednesday to see why rsync is giving > correct answers in praxis. : > Rodrigo. -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
