Adam Olsen wrote:
On Apr 16, 11:15 am, SpreadTooThin <bjobrie...@gmail.com> wrote:
And yes he is right CRCs hashing all have a probability of saying that
the files are identical when in fact they are not.
Here's the bottom line. It is either:
A) Several hundred years of mathematics and cryptography are wrong.
The birthday problem as described is incorrect, so a collision is far
more likely than 42 trillion trillion to 1. You are simply the first
person to have noticed it.
B) Your software was buggy, or possibly the input was maliciously
produced. Or, a really tiny chance that your particular files
contained a pattern that provoked bad behaviour from MD5.
Finding a specific limitation of the algorithm is one thing. Claiming
that the math is fundamentally wrong is quite another.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
================================
Spending a lifetime in applied math has taught me:
1) All applied math is finite.
2) Any algorithm failing to handle all contingencies is flawed.
The meaning of 1) is that it is limited in what it can actually do.
The meaning of 2) is that the designer missed or left out something.
Neither should be taken as bad. Both need to be accepted 'as 'is' and
the decision to use (when,where,conditions) based on the probability of
non-failure.
"...a pattern that provoked bad behavior... " does mean the algorithm is
incomplete and may be fundamentally wrong. Underscore "is" and "may".
The more complicated the math the harder it is to keep a higher form of
math from checking (or improperly displacing) a lower one. Which, of
course, breaks the rules. Commonly called improper thinking. A number
of math teasers make use of that.
Steve
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
