schr0dinger

This has nothing whatsoever to do with science. You made no hypothesis rather based the “postulate” off the lower bound of your observation over a very small sample set.

Imagine this, write a C program where you write x million functions where each simply returns a single number (ie three_million = return 3000000) etc. then the codebase contains as many lines as you can imagine and up to int overflow (or use bignumber lib) and 0% of your bugs are related to memory safeness.

Well minor including the switch to use of so called “quantitative type theory” where you can include use counts for variables that inform the compiler how long variables will stick around. Also the compiler switch to Chez Scheme yields a pretty big performance boost.

This allows hash tables to have expected insertion and search times of O(1) as well which is as far as I’m aware the major motivation for it. Also the set of functions can be huge and the hash functions in the universe is infinite following the fact that there are infinitely many primes which would mean that brute force quickly becomes impractical for cracking the hash.

A universal set of hash functions is a set of hash functions such that randomly choosing any hash function from the set guarantees an upper bound on the number of collisions regardless of which keys from the universe are input to it (which are also random).

Basically it makes it more difficult for an adversary to exploit collisions from your hash function.

How would Graham’s number compare to, say, Aleph Null?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number