← Back to context Comment by layoutIfNeeded 6 years ago Interesting. Where does 3 come from for the number of hash functions? Why not 4 or 5? 6 comments layoutIfNeeded Reply fixf 6 years ago The minimum number motivated to work is also the cheapest. 2 was simply deemed insecure. thomasmg 6 years ago No, actually 2 would also work. It's just that 3 hash functions needs the least space for some reason (less than 2, less than 4 or more). fixf 6 years ago Well met, and thanks for identifying the solution using overhead. layoutIfNeeded 6 years ago Insecure? What does that mean in the context of a read-only data structure? fixf 6 years ago Good point, loose language on my part. I am thinking of false positives or collision. The required statistical properties aren't met.
fixf 6 years ago The minimum number motivated to work is also the cheapest. 2 was simply deemed insecure. thomasmg 6 years ago No, actually 2 would also work. It's just that 3 hash functions needs the least space for some reason (less than 2, less than 4 or more). fixf 6 years ago Well met, and thanks for identifying the solution using overhead. layoutIfNeeded 6 years ago Insecure? What does that mean in the context of a read-only data structure? fixf 6 years ago Good point, loose language on my part. I am thinking of false positives or collision. The required statistical properties aren't met.
thomasmg 6 years ago No, actually 2 would also work. It's just that 3 hash functions needs the least space for some reason (less than 2, less than 4 or more). fixf 6 years ago Well met, and thanks for identifying the solution using overhead.
layoutIfNeeded 6 years ago Insecure? What does that mean in the context of a read-only data structure? fixf 6 years ago Good point, loose language on my part. I am thinking of false positives or collision. The required statistical properties aren't met.
fixf 6 years ago Good point, loose language on my part. I am thinking of false positives or collision. The required statistical properties aren't met.
The minimum number motivated to work is also the cheapest. 2 was simply deemed insecure.
No, actually 2 would also work. It's just that 3 hash functions needs the least space for some reason (less than 2, less than 4 or more).
Well met, and thanks for identifying the solution using overhead.
Insecure? What does that mean in the context of a read-only data structure?
Good point, loose language on my part. I am thinking of false positives or collision. The required statistical properties aren't met.