[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 01:01:09 -0700
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@....org>
To: <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] Password hashing as a self-overwriting Turing machine
I made a serious understatement of the number of functions from 2^n to 2^n. The problem of achieving Turing Completeness is even worse.
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@....org]
Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 22:15
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: RE: [PHC] Password hashing as a self-overwriting Turing machine
Concerning claims for Turing Completeness, here is an argument to the contrary, below.
- Dennis
[ … ]
<orcmid>
[ … ]
<correction>
Now, the supposed total number of functions, Z -> Z for Z having 2^512 members is
(2^512)^(2^512). That’s a *lot* more than the number of functions that the 2^512 values in S can select among (and that assumes no duplicates arise in the selection).
In addition, *all* of the (2^512)^(2^512) functions are computable. Z is a finite domain, so the functions are enumerable.
</correction>
While nrOps complicates things, it is too small (not more than 8 bytes) to overcome this limitation and very large values of nrOps impact running time too much. Also, too small values of nrOps don’t produce much transformation in the iterative BusyBeaver operations.
[ … ]
</orcmid>
**Content of type "**text/html**" skipped**

Powered by blists - more mailing lists