On the minimal synchronism needed for distributed consensus
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Extended impossibility results for asynchronous complete networks
Information Processing Letters
PODC '88 Proceedings of the seventh annual ACM Symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Linearizability: a correctness condition for concurrent objects
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS)
The asynchronous computability theorem for t-resilient tasks
STOC '93 Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
Consensus power makes (some) sense! (extended abstract)
PODC '94 Proceedings of the thirteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Failure detectors and the wait-free hierarchy (extended abstract)
Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM symposium on Principles of distributed computing
Journal of the ACM (JACM)
Distributed Algorithms
SIAM Journal on Computing
WDAG '95 Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms
Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics
Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations and Advanced Topics
Tight group renaming on groups of size g is equivalent to g-consensus
DISC'09 Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Distributed computing
The failure detector abstraction
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Hi-index | 0.00 |
The impossibility of reaching deterministic consensus in an asynchronous and crash prone system was established for a weak variant of the problem, usually called weak consensus, where a set of processes need to decide on a common value in {0,1}, so that both 0 and 1 are possible decision values. On the other hand, approaches to circumventing the impossibility focused on a stronger variant of the problem, called consensus, where the processes need to decide on one of the values they initially propose (0 or 1). This paper studies the computational gap between the two problems. We show that any set of deterministic object types that, combined with registers, implements weak consensus, also implements consensus. Then we exhibit a non-deterministic type that implements weak consensus, among any number of processes, but, combined with registers, cannot implement consensus even among two processes. In modern terminology, this type has consensus power 1 and weak consensus power ~.