Re: April Fools...?
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:17 am
Glad to hear I could bring music into your life.
Those kinds of algorithms are usually O(∑^n), where ∑ is the set of potential characters valid in the password, and n is the length of the password. Even for just lower case letters, that ends up being 26^14 = 6.45e+19. All alphanumeric characters (not including symbols) is 1.24e+25. As soon as you throw in special symbols (like $, #, %), that number increases even more so. If you don't know the password's length, you have to test all n from 1 to the max known size, theoretically infinity, compounding the time even more so.SpunkySix wrote:
Hey, who knows? He could've stayed up all night and gotten lucky.
Wow, a really cool math lesson AND a Hunger Games reference... nice.DRKO wrote:Those kinds of algorithms are usually O(∑^n), where ∑ is the set of potential characters valid in the password, and n is the length of the password. Even for just lower case letters, that ends up being 26^14 = 6.45e+19. All alphanumeric characters (not including symbols) is 1.24e+25. As soon as you throw in special symbols (like $, #, %), that number increases even more so. If you don't know the password's length, you have to test all n from 1 to the max known size, theoretically infinity, compounding the time even more so.SpunkySix wrote:
Hey, who knows? He could've stayed up all night and gotten lucky.
In other words, he would be very, very lucky if he managed to crack it in any reasonable amount of time on a consumer-level machine, and should consider playing the lottery. Not that it isn't possible, but the odds are ever not in his favor.
Gaylord...DRKO wrote:math
I'm firmly against the use of such derogatory language, but man, if there was ever an appropriate time to use it to describe something... "math" is it.Comrade wrote:Gaylord...DRKO wrote:math
That is relatively close to my point. I was aiming on BFing 5 symbols, not more. Even that would take a considerable amount of time. BFing 14-symbol password consisting of upper- and lowercase letters and numbers only is approximately 13537086546263552 times harder, if my calculations are correct.DRKO wrote:In other words, he would be very, very lucky if he managed to crack it in any reasonable amount of time on a consumer-level machine, and should consider playing the lottery. Not that it isn't possible, but the odds are ever not in his favor.
But saying that math is the lord of gays is an insult to gays, really. Why would they let something so lame lead them?Comrade wrote:There is nothing wrong with being called lord of the gays, unless you have something against gay people
I try my best. As someone who has 5/8ths of a computer science degree, and is working on the last parts of it, it's something that interests me. A large part of it is the design and analysis of computer algorithms.SpunkySix wrote: Wow, a really cool math lesson AND a Hunger Games reference... nice.
Math isn't that bad. All your computer is is a glorified calculator. The basic instructions for a processor are move this number from here to there, add these two numbers, and flip the bits of this number, really. There are various other macros that will do several operations in a row for you to accomplish more complicated things, such as addition and subtraction, or something like MOVEQs that use the floating-point unit to crunch some decimal numbers in parallel for you. Without math, nearly all electronics wouldn't exist. You may not like it that much, but you should at least be appreciative of the other people who do, because they make your life a whole lot easier.SpunkySix wrote:I'm firmly against the use of such derogatory language, but man, if there was ever an appropriate time to use it to describe something... "math" is it.Comrade wrote: Gaylord...
I'm not sure of the exact difficulty increase, but you're about right. The problem becomes exponentially harder as you add more symbols to the alphabet.wazuzu wrote: That is relatively close to my point. I was aiming on BFing 5 symbols, not more. Even that would take a considerable amount of time. BFing 14-symbol password consisting of upper- and lowercase letters and numbers only is approximately 13537086546263552 times harder, if my calculations are correct.
I'm relatively positive that, while it's still appropriate to approximate numerical values of seventeen digits or more, 'approximately' would more appropriately precede a shorthand exponent to spare most eyes the result of a large string of arithmetic. But that's my personal opinion.wazuzu wrote:approximately 13537086546263552 times harder, if my calculations are correct
And here we see the "guy taking a VN joke too seriously" in his natural habitat...DRKO wrote:You may not like it that much, but you should at least be appreciative of the other people who do, because they make your life a whole lot easier.
But jokes are fun. And you're no fun, Potato. [/bawl] [/sarcasm]Potato wrote: And here we see the "guy taking a VN joke too seriously" in his natural habitat...
How'd we go from April Fools to math anyway?
Umber pls.Umber wrote:But jokes are fun. And you're no fun, Potato. [/bawl] [/sarcasm]Potato wrote: And here we see the "guy taking a VN joke too seriously" in his natural habitat...
How'd we go from April Fools to math anyway?