# The objects in an analogy

Consider this sentence:

This situation is analogous to the classic problem of cracking a hashed and salted password: We see the X as a password and Y as a salt.

What are the other ways to refer to the different "objects" here, instead of just using see? As the rest of my text is rather formal, see feels like a bad fit.

Edit:

To be crystal clear, my goal is to argue the use of the analogy by comparing the X and Y to the password and salt.

• If you don't like the word see, you could use the word regard. However, you should explain why you don't like using the word see; otherwise, it's hard to make a suggested improvement when we don't know what's wrong with the baseline. – J.R. Oct 19 '12 at 8:37
• In my mind, see didn't really suit the formal language I use in the rest of the text. I wanted to explore the options. – Henning Klevjer Oct 19 '12 at 8:47

When I want to be formal, or very explicit about an analogy, I say, "X is analogous to the password and Y is analogous to the salt."

When I am being less formal -- or if I have just used the word "analogy" and I don't to sound repetitive -- I say, "X is like the password and Y is like the salt."

You could also say "X takes the role of the password", "X functions like the password", or many other words expressing a similarity.

You could also recast the sentence to compare the functions rather than the objects. For example, "Let's consider an analogy between my process and passwords. Just as a password is hashed using a salt value, so an X is framboozled using a Y."

In your example, X is an analog (or analogue, chiefly British) of password and Y is an analog of salt.

As I said in my earlier comment, the word regard might work:

We regard the X as a password and Y as a salt.

regard consider or think of (someone or something) in a specified way

Another way to accomplish your goal is to give the language a more mathematical bent:

This situation is analogous to the classic problem of cracking a hashed and salted password; in this example, let X be the password, and Y the salt.

map

It is generally the practice to refer to this as mapping.

This situation is analogous to the classic problem of cracking a hashed and salted password: We map the X and Y to 'password' and 'salt' respectively.

Other ways of saying what you seem to intend to say...

X stands in the same relationship to Y as the salt of a password does to its hash.

or

A salted password is to its hash as X is to Y.

or possibly

A hash of a password is to its salt(?) as X is to Y.

but I don't know if salt can be used so freely on its own as hash.