Talk:Two Generals' Problem

Bitcoin / Blockchain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What about Bitcoin / Blockchain? --FML ^{talk - me at pt} 20:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin and blockchains are not the magical bullet to solve all computer problem ShiberToast (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BFT and Level of knowledge

However it's true that both generals will never have ssame knowlege it is not true, that they cannot establish common time of attack and be sure that other will do the same.

Let's consider two actors and message flow

A -> B MSG B -> A ACK A -> B ACK2 B -> A ACK3 A -> B ACK4 B -> A ACK5 A KNOWS that ACK4 WAS successfully delivered and therefore that B is certain that A knows about succesful delivery of ACK2 A -> B ACK6 B KNOWS that ACK5 WAS successfully delivered and therefore that A is Certain About sucesful delivery of ACK2

In other words, If any side Send or recieves ACK6 they can proceed on knowledge in MSG

So they can reach consensus. The trick is that there is bigger than zero probability that it will never happend and they will not attack.

But they can be certain that if they attack they will be successful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A318:8263:D980:151:590D:2E2D:E08C (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How do they know that ACK6 was received ShiberToast (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical Error in Title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the title, the apostrophe in the word generals' should be between the l and s, not after the s. I moved the article to Two General's Problem ,someone reverted the move and called the reason not a good reason, so can we reach a consensus here about whether the page should be moved? ShiberToast (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The title should probably be "Two Generals Problem", with no apostrophe, because it's a problem involving two generals. It could conceivably be "Two Generals' Problem" because it's a problem that the two generals collectively have. But an apostrophe between l and s doesn't make sense -- "general's problem" would be a problem belonging to one general, and there are two of them. 195.219.22.180 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ShiberToast: Please stop warring over this. You are wrong. The long-standing title is grammatically correct.

The "problem" is "possessed" by "two generals". Therefpre the possessive plural applies. This means the apostrophe goes after the "s", not before (that would be a problem belonging to "one general")

It should not, either be unapostrophised. ——SN54129 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You've written a very forceful reply, @Serial Number 54129:. I can't see that ShiberToast was warring over anything, just correcting bad grammar that the site should not promote to readers. The correct English is Two Generals' Problem. Please have a read up on grammar if you disagree. When this title is corrected, I hope you will not just war in disagreement.ToaneeM (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@ToaneeM: I now feel like being even more forceful  :) the reason the title is currently correct is because I keep having to correct it. What you say is true: Two Generals' Problem is correct. But ShiberToast has now moved the page to the incorrect Two General's Problem twice ([1],[2]). ——SN54129 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I've got the editors and the suggestions mixed up and backed the wrong horse - sincere apologies, @Serial Number 54129: :-) You are indeed the correct one, the title is correct again and I hope @ShiberToast: can have a read up on this grammar and see that it's correct. Thanks.ToaneeM (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC) (written earlier, failed to save)

At a pinch "Two Generals problem" without a possessive apostrophe would be all right. The existing, and grammatically correct "Generals'" is better. The illiterate "Two General's" would be idiotic. Tim riley talk 13:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion: I am an idiot that forgot how plurals work, dismissed ShiberToast (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict) Don't torture yourself, ShiberToast, that's our job.;)

There's a fascinating lack of agreement in the literature about whether or not to apostrophize. This respectable book, for instance, omits it. A conflict-avoiding solution would be to rename the article Coordinated attack problem. Who am I kidding? That's not how Wikipedia works. Favonian (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've heard of the "Oxford Comma". Cambridge tried to do away with the apostrophe - if they ever had dreaming spires over there it soon turned to a nightmare [3]. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The dreaming spires' nightmare, presumably :) ——SN54129 09:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Lynne Truss wrote an entertaining book, Eats, shoots & leaves: the zero tolerance guide to punctuation. The classic sentence demonstrating that we need apostrophes is

There was no dinner in the oven, so we ate the dogs.

Diagram for section "Illustrating the Problem"

I believe a diagram would help better visualize the problem then just plain text ShiberToast (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Issue with "Proof by Symmetry" subsection in section "Proof"

Proof by symmetry assumed that the attacker can send fake messages, but in the problem, the attacker can merely intercept messages. Should the subsection be removed? ShiberToast (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)