3 ms·
I wouldn't mind using a list of 65,536 words, but I came up with the existing list by hand, and it took me a good half-hour. I guess it would be possible to gen
by zacharyvoase 15y ago
I wouldn't mind using a list of 65,536 words, but I came up with the existing list by hand, and it took me a good half-hour. I guess it would be possible to generate a wordlist, or even combine phonemes to make fake but valid-sounding words (similar to a password generator), but for a proof-of-concept I feel it has value.
Note that I never intended this to have all the uniqueness of the original digest. It's merely supposed to be 'good enough' for UI purposes.
- wisty 15y agoYou could use nltk's wordnet to generate a bunch of words of certain kinds. As a proof of concept, UNIX should have a list of words, probably in /usr/share/dict/words (OSX) or maybe /usr/dict/words. /usr/share/dict/words is likely to be pretty big, over 200k words, but it's still human readable. You could prune it by removing proper words (i.e. anything capitalized).
- muxxa 15y agoAlso might be a good idea to take the Metaphone of the words, and only select words from the dictionary that have unique metaphones.
- lubutu 15y agoI wonder how many bits of information could be packed into a single (nonsensical) syllable, without being too prone to misinterpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology#Phonotactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_phonology#Phonotactics I think this is getting a little beyond my linguistics skills... Edit: I suppose which syllables are easily corruptable depends on the medium: written hashes would require a different set of graphemes than spoken hashes would phonemes, for example, while memorised hashes would likely be different again. I wonder if there's been any research or anything into this.