4 ms·
Perhaps you're thinking of the Two Generals Problem? Two armies, each led by a general, are preparing to attack a fortified city. The armies are encamp
by alextgordon 16y ago
Perhaps you're thinking of the Two Generals Problem?
Two armies, each led by a general, are preparing to attack a fortified city.
The armies are encamped near the city, each on its own hill. A valley
separates the two hills, and the only way for the two generals to communicate
is by sending messengers through the valley. Unfortunately, the valley is
occupied by the city's defenders and there's a chance that any given messenger
sent through the valley will be captured. Note that while the two generals
have agreed that they will attack, they haven't agreed upon a time for attack
before taking up their positions on their respective hills.
The two generals must have their armies attack the city at the same time in
order to succeed. They must thus communicate with each other to decide on a
time to attack and to agree to attack at that time, and each general must know
that the other general knows that they have agreed to the attack plan. Because
acknowledgement of message receipt can be lost as easily as the original message,
a potentially infinite series of messages is required to come to consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Generals%27_Problem
- chime 16y agoI agree. Looks like the submitter is thinking of Two Generals. It's closely related to BFT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance ) which does have some pretty complex solutions. Friend of mine wrote a paper on improving BFT for his PhD thesis.