On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 17:15 +0100, M vd S wrote: > Here you go: > > 16 back: 57% illegal states > 32 back: 68% illegal states > 48 back: 74% illegal states > 64 back: 78% illegal states > 80 back: 82% illegal states > 96 back: 84% illegal states > > These numbers are based on one chain. (de001bc0006f0000 [0] -> > 36dc483fb4fe0000) > > I verified superficially with chains > de001bc034563200 [0] -> d59ebd1df40d8000 > f1234678e5f7d600 [0] -> 61df56b387178000 > > and both give the same pattern. Clocking back 150 times (the maximum in > practice) gives 89% illegal states. >
I think it is should be compared with what you get from "purely random" states, it could be that our round function has a propensity for generating invalid states, and that would be a major flaw in our approach. (which advance value are you using?) F _______________________________________________ A51 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51
