[krferriter]

Yes the previous value was not infinity. It was impractical to solve in a human lifetime, but if they keep trimming off a few bits it very quickly becomes practical. If actually "infinity" then dividing it by any finite number would still result in infinity, which is not the case here.

[geofft]

Right, which is why the specific claim here is that 63 is not a problem, not that smaller numbers in general are not a problem.

A better way to put this: instead of saying "it reduces the search space by 9 quintillion," say "it reduces 50% of the search space." Sure, that's a lot, but not nearly as much as trimming 8 bits and saying "it reduces 99.6% of the search space."

[saagarjha]

> trimming off a few bits

i.e., reduce it by close to practically infinity?