4 research outputs found
Why Extension-Based Proofs Fail
We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that
includes valency arguments. They are modelled as an interaction between a
prover and a protocol. Using proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has
been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve k-set agreement
among n > k > 1 processes in a wait-free manner in certain asynchronous models.
However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were
possible. We show that this impossibility result cannot be obtained for one of
these models by an extension-based proof and, hence, extension-based proofs are
limited in power.Comment: This version of the paper is for the NIS model. Previous versions of
the paper are for the NIIS mode
Why extension-based proofs fail
We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that includes valency arguments. They are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol. Using proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve -set agreement among processes or approximate agreement on a cycle of length 4 among processes in a wait-free manner in asynchronous models where processes communicate using objects that can be constructed from shared registers. However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were possible. We show that these impossibility results cannot be obtained by extension-based proofs in the iterated snapshot model and, hence, extension-based proofs are limited in power
Why extension-based proofs fail
It is impossible to deterministically solve wait-free consensus in an asynchronous system. The classic proof uses a valency argument, which constructs an infinite execution by repeatedly extending a finite execution. We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol and that include valency arguments.
Using proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve k-set agreement among n > k ≥ 2 processes in a wait-free manner. However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were possible. We show that this impossibility result cannot be obtained by an extension-based proof and, hence, extension-based proofs are limited in power
Brief Announcement: Why Extension-Based Proofs Fail
We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that includes valency arguments. They are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol. Using proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve k-set agreement among n > k ≥ 2 processes in a wait-free manner. However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were possible. We explain why this impossibility result cannot be obtained by an extension-based proof and, hence, extension-based proofs are limited in power