Weird News

[sexobon]

Tw, hashing and encryption are not the same thing. With encryption, there is a key with which something can be decrypted. Hashing is one way, no key, isn't reversible. A hashing result can't be read by humans. Apples and oranges.

The term "reverse hash" is a misnomer applied to the only option which is a brute force attack.

Did that encryption algorithm work? Trying to reserve [sic] the hash using brute force takes long. Reversing the hash to check it is fast.

Using "encryption" algorithm interchangeably with "hashing" is proof positive that you're out of your depth. The terms are mutually exclusive. I see you're waiting for someone else to do your research into this subject for you too. You're way out of touch.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Using "encryption" algorithm interchangeably with "hashing" is proof positive that you're out of your depth.

Strange how papers that discussed encryption discussed hash codes. You better tell them they are wrong.

From a web site on codes and secret messages:

There are four main goals of a good cryptographic hash function:
1. It shouldn't require too much computation to calculate the hash of a message (otherwise, websites and other venues would get way too bogged down with dealing with hashes!)
2. If you have a particular hash, you shouldn't be able to invent a message that has that hash
3. If you change even a tiny bit of a message, the new message should have a different hash.

and then says what a good crypotgraphic has code must have:

And your password is never stored, which means no one can access it.

Without the password in that example (a prime number), then a hash cannot be restored.

Hash codes are not limited to encryption. These are also found in data compression. And in the case of that quantum computer, to extract information from noise. Hash codes also exist for data structures. Another hashing function is called fractals.

You really need to learn stuff before posting your feelings. Since your feeling only want to demean. And not contribute honest answers to the topic.

[sexobon]

Encryption is a two-way function; what is encrypted can be decrypted with the proper key. Hashing, however, is a one-way function that scrambles plain text to produce a unique message digest. With a properly designed algorithm, there is no way to reverse the hashing process to reveal the original password.

The only purpose cryptographic hash functions serve is to compare two pieces of data, such as when downloading files, storing passwords, and pulling data from a database. It's possible for a cryptographic hash function to produce the same checksum for different pieces of data.

As usual, you're using doubletalk and skewing definitions to cover your incompetence in this area. The gist of the discussion is about long processes that can be quickly checked. Reversible cryptographic hashing would not entail a long process, by which to contrast quantum computing to what we have today; therefore, we must have been referencing proper hashing. Reading comprehension tw, I haz it - you don't. You really need to learn stuff before posting your feelings so you understand what people are talking about.

[Gravdigr]

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Popcorn algorithm is a subject for another thread. It makes for pretty pictures though.

[Happy Monkey]

Not every Freecell game is winnable. You can construct an impossible one. Some versions of MS Freecell allow you to see examples by entering game numbers -1 and -2. Outside those special cases, all but one of the pseudorandom deals supported by the game can be won.


But it did require brute force to discover that.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

The gist of the discussion is about long processes that can be quickly checked. Reversible cryptographic hashing would not entail a long process, by which to contrast quantum computing to what we have today; therefore, we must have been referencing proper hashing.

Not one fact to justify a misguided accusation. Reversing cryptographic hashes can be a very long process. Which is another hash targeted by quantum computing.

Even professionals who do this research were quoted. What supports those denials? Extremists are taught to demean and disparage another. Since that (and not facts or reality) is somehow proof.

He puts up a strawman. A hash can be quickly checked. Therefore it is not a hash.

Some hashes can be quickly verified (checked by a reverse hash). Others cannot. As demonstrated in previous examples that were intentionally ignored. Since strawmen and insulting others is now the standard for proof. He again does like henry quirk. Since personal attacks is the new standard in the Cellar.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But it did require brute force to discover that.

I am not sure that quoted discussion says all possible solutions were attempted for game 11982. It only says no one has found a solution. That does not say all possible solutions were attempted.

Freecell demonstrates a challenge that quantum computing should solve many times faster. Since the number of possible games is quite large (apparently more than 11982 possible games). And the number of possible solutions is exponentially larger.

BTW, what are the number of possible games? I believe it is more than 8 E 67 possible games. I could not guess how many possible solutions must be attempted for each game.

[Happy Monkey]

52! possible games, so yes, over 8e67, though it could be cut down by dividing by the number of equivalent games (swap suits, swap columns of identical size). But, as I said, games -1 and -2 are not solveable, so it is proven by counterexample that not all games are solveable. Game 11982 is the only one of the 32000 supported by MS FreeCell that has not been proven solveable through brute force.

[BigV]

Also not solvable through brute facts:

tw

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

Not one fact to justify a misguided accusation. Reversing cryptographic hashes can be a very long process. …

Fact: You used the concepts of hash and cryptographic hash interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. Your application was no more appropriate than adding a comment about gas tanks on cycles when the discussion is about juggling on unicycles. Then, after your lack of comprehension is pointed out, claiming that unicycles, bicycles and motorcycles are all cycles: some have gas tanks and some do not.

Originally Posted by tw

...He puts up a strawman. A hash can be quickly checked. Therefore it is not a hash.

It's not a proper hash if it can be reversed. It's adulterated like cryptographic hashes.

Originally Posted by tw

Some hashes can be quickly verified (checked by a reverse hash). Others cannot. ...

Save it for when the conversation shifts to motor-unicycles (see above.)

Everyone but you can see that you've demonstrated continuing incompetence in this area and deteriorated mental status.

Tw's ride, let's see him juggle while riding it:

[henry quirk]

Nope.

Nobody does it better
Makes you feel sad for the rest
Nobody does it half as good as me
Baby, I'm the best

[xoxoxoBruce]

Gee gosh golly, I'm sorry I asked.












I lie, not sorry at all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

It's not a proper hash if it can be reversed.

Some reversed hashed can end up identifying completely different solutions. Two completely different inputs can result in the same hash output. There is no one magic definition for a hash. An index to databases are even an example of a hash.

[sexobon]

You're talking baby talk again.