Content deleted Content added
→Rewrite: obscurantism |
|||
Line 197:
The whole article reads like a popular magazine article.
The text says: ''the base being usually the size of the character set.'' The character set used is ASCII, since the pseudocode examples prominently display it, but the base used is 256.ASCII is 7-bit codes. But the prime modulus chosen was 101, suspiciously close to the number of printable ASCII characters, 95. It appears to me there was gross confusion about what the base and modulus are supposed to represent, and how they are to be chosen to yield a good hash function.
The text says: ''The essential benefit achieved by using a rolling hash such as the Rabin fingerprint...'' A Rabin fingerprint is not a rolling hash - it is a fingerprinting function, similar to a checksum. It may or not be used in a rolling hash, and is most of the time used elsewhere.
| |||