3 ms·
> The big difference is when deciding on an action, each general only needs to eventually learn the action to take. This is implicitly dropping the requirement
by wool_gather 8y ago
> The big difference is when deciding on an action, each general only needs to eventually learn the action to take.
This is implicitly dropping the requirement that the actions be coordinated.
When the message is what to do, the when must have been previously agreed upon (e.g. "dawn of the day after we figure out what we're going to do").
> using this algorithm will eventually finish
No, the same problem exists as in the other scenario: neither general knows when the other learned the correct action to take, and cannot schedule it correctly.
- malisper 8y agoI agree. The author of the post didn't require that the general's attack at the same time. They only had to reach consensus on whether to attack or retreat. That's what spooneybarger meant by: > The article incorrectly defines the two generals problem. > The [actual] problem states that the two generals have decided to attack but need to coordinate on when. Failure to attack at the same time will result in defeat.