You're on programmer humor, we don't do "Brain" here.

It's actually a really good question. What you're explaining is called a collision, by creating the same hash with different numbers you can succesfully login.

This why some standard hashing function become deprecated and are replaced when someone finds a collision. MD5, which was used a lot to hash passwords or files, is considered insecure because of all the collisions people could find.

In the example yes.

In the real world, finding an input that produces the right hash output isn't easy. And because a lot of users reuse passwords (don't do it, but people do), a list of emails and passwords gives you an incredibly lazy and easy to do way to compromise accounts on other sites.

With a hash it's difficult to find a combination that results in this specific hashed password. Think of it like this: you have a biiig prime number and you multiply it by another. Now, that's easy, but it's way harder to do it backwards - factorize a large composite number (this is just for illustration). Similarly trying to find a password that works when you input it based on the hashed one is way more difficult than hashing the password in the first place.

Additional to what others have said: The "salted" part is very relevant for storing.

There aren't soooo many different hashing algorithms people use. So, let's simplify the hashing again with the crossfoot example.

Let's say, 60% of websites use this one algorithm (crossfoot) for storing your password, and someone steals the password "hashes" (and the login / email). I could ran a program that creates me a list of all possible crossfoots for all numbers for 1 to 100000.

This would give me an easy lookup table for finding the "real" number behind those hashes. (Those tables exists. Look up "rainbow tables")

Buuuut what if I use a little bit of salt (and pepper pepper pepper) before doing my hashing / crossfooting?

Let's use the pw "69" again and use a salt with a random number "420" and add them all together:

6 + 9 + 420 = 435

This hash wouldn't be in my previous mentioned lookup table. Use different salts for every user and at least the lookup problem isn't such a big problem anymore.