Cybergibbons! (Project Zero Hounslow)

No, from the composition some scientist could identity the fruits that were blended No, the point of hashes is that a tiny change at the beginning changes the output completely. Not true here.

Interesting you jumped to "hash" from one way function. Also, that isn't a given property of a hash function.

I like it! Yes, not perfect, re: other comments - but analogies never are. The idea of "not easily recoverable" is well communicated!

Do hash functions, if used to repeatedly hash a hash, produce all possible hashes or do they get trapped in discrete loops? Are some hash functions more "loopy" than others? Are there hash functions that hash some hashes to themselves?

That works great! Especially because it's about the same impossibility as well. "But can't you technically put the pieces back together?" Yes, but how do you know your result is the original?

That's why I am liking the Lego model analogy. You can build another model, but you have no idea if it is the same one.

Example: X=[1,88,31,49,21]-> oneway(X) -> 1+88+31+49+21=170 There are infinite possibilities to decompose 170 as sums back, so it cannot be effectively inverted unless you know the nature and size of each summand which will give you finite possibilities but still “a lot”.

I worry about that one as an example though, because one-way functions leads to hashes and leads to the concept of collisions. A collision is SO easy with that example, that it can be harmful for learning.

No. You still know roughly what the original ingredients have been.

Yes, that's true. There's perhaps a better analogy, but I think if you're trying to explain just the "can't be recomposed part", it may help. TBH I'd just show a basic math function that is 'hashy'. That's how it clicked for me, and I suck at math.