Talk:Damm algorithm: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:44, 14 April 2024

Latest revision as of 10:23, 17 August 2024

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 1:

{{oldafdfull| date = 22 December 2012 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = Damm algorithm }}{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start}}

{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>[[Exponentiation#In abstract algebra|powers]]</nowiki> The anchor (#In abstract algebra) has been [[Special:Diff/1042507126|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"In abstract algebra","appear":{"revid":297269046,"parentid":297268883,"timestamp":"2009-06-19T00:29:27Z","removed_section_titles":["Generalizations of exponentiation","Exponentiation in abstract algebra","Exponentiation over sets","Exponentiation in category theory","Exponentiation of cardinal and ordinal numbers"],"added_section_titles":["Generalizations","In abstract algebra","Over sets","In category theory","Of cardinal and ordinal numbers"]},"disappear":{"revid":1042507126,"parentid":1042500891,"timestamp":"2021-09-05T10:01:01Z","removed_section_titles":["In abstract algebra"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->

Line 88:

== Trailing zeros? ==

The article explains that leading zeroeszeros have no effect on the checksum but that is probably not a weakness but a strength. If there is a weakness, surely it is that trailing zeros have no effect? 13, 130, 1300 and 13000 are all valid. An easy defence would be to reject all numbers ending in (one or more) zeroeszeros. [[User:Johnhwoods|Johnhwoods]] ([[User talk:Johnhwoods|talk]]) 08:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I'm thinking about zeros, the weaknesses section says that no checksum algorithm is affected by leading zeros. But it looks to me like Verhoeff is.