Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:34:37 12/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2001 at 15:59:29, David Rasmussen wrote: >>>There is as much randomness in my keys with minimum hamming distance 17 as there >>>are in anyone who has just taken the first keys that came and has a minimum >>>hamming distance of 11. And my keys are less likely to collide. >> >>If they are less likely to collide I think you have increased randomness, so in >>essence you have improved the PRNG. > >Why do you think that? Why do you insist that increased randomness is the only >way to minimize collisions? Because I am trying to consider the field F2^64, and a set of vectors can "become closer by the XOR metric" if you _increase_ their Hamming distance, because they get a more similar number of bits that are off-set. This could, IMHO, increase the chance of them XOR out, since this seems (too me at least) harder to do if you have a different number of bits off-set for each vector. Enforcing special features upon the set of vectors definitely destroys randomness to some degree, it could be you improve on the table thereby, I just don't think it is obvious in any way. But okay if this is a widely accepted technique in the world of computer science, then who am I to say it shouldn't work ;) -S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.