Rodrigo, > 20 sep 2013 kl. 14:51 skrev hru...@gmail.com: > > and developers of OpenBSD have here a strange standpoint that they > defend without sound argumentation, including asking the one that > expresses the critics that he goes away.
But have you understood why? You claim that what most people here know about hashes is wrong. You do not provide sound arguments for this (except for fluffy statements that maybe could be taken from a set theory text book). You persist in ignoring arguments that refute your claim. Don't you at least wonder a bit why a large group of seemingly smart and logical people do not agree with you at all? That maybe you are wrong? That maybe your argumentative skills could be improved? If you can prove your theory in the domain of application we'll listen. But you can't or you would already have done so. Your error in thinking is that if we have an extremely large set of strings, a very large set is mapped to each hash value. Therefore you reason that a collision is very likely. But if you are comparing two specific strings, the likelihood of them hashing to the same value is EXTREMELY small (other people replying have provided the numbers). Thus, if hash(A)=hash(B), A=B quite a bit more often than not. You are right in that many possible strings have the same hash, but there are many, many, many more that have a different one. /Johan
