Distributed Algorithms¶
Lynch, N. A. (1996). Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Fault Tolerance
- The essential commitment is that perfect components cannot be assumed — hardware fails, software has bugs, networks partition, humans err, adversaries attack — and that robust systems must be designed so that individual failures do not produce system-level failures, typically by ensuring no single point of failure and by maintaining operational service under specified failure modes
This sourceComprehensive treatment of consensus, timing/fault models, and failure detectors; organizes material by timing model and interprocess-communication mechanism.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Lynch's book organises material by timing model and covers Byzantine agreement, crashes and link failures, but does not enumerate crash-stop/omission or correlated vs independent.
“The material is organized according to the system model—first by the timing model and then by the interprocess communication mechanism. The material on system models is isolated in separate chapters for easy reference.”
- The essential commitment is that perfect components cannot be assumed — hardware fails, software has bugs, networks partition, humans err, adversaries attack — and that robust systems must be designed so that individual failures do not produce system-level failures, typically by ensuring no single point of failure and by maintaining operational service under specified failure modes
- Local-to-Global Aggregation
- Distributed systems — each node maintains a local invariant; the protocol guarantees a global invariant with no global observer. Federated estimation and consensus — federated learning, gossip averaging, and Paxos-style consensus aggregate local computations into global outputs under explicit consistency rules.
This sourceConsensus and quorum-intersection arguments by which node-local invariants aggregate to a global system invariant with no global observer.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Publisher's description places consensus, data consistency and global snapshots in the book's scope, but states no invariant-aggregation proposition.
“The problems covered include resource allocation, communication, consensus among distributed processes, data consistency, deadlock detection, leader election, global snapshots, and many others.”
- Distributed systems — each node maintains a local invariant; the protocol guarantees a global invariant with no global observer. Federated estimation and consensus — federated learning, gossip averaging, and Paxos-style consensus aggregate local computations into global outputs under explicit consistency rules.
Domain-specific¶
- Byzantine Generals Problem
- The third category is strictly harder: tolerating f Byzantine faults requires three times the redundancy (3f + 1 participants) that tolerating f crash faults requires (f + 1 participants)
This sourceThe textbook statement that Byzantine agreement algorithms use more than three times as many processes as the number of failures tolerated (n > 3t).
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“processors to tolerate the ([Byzantine]) failure of one processor. [Byzantine] agreement algorithms are”
- The third category is strictly harder: tolerating f Byzantine faults requires three times the redundancy (3f + 1 participants) that tolerating f crash faults requires (f + 1 participants)
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 3 of 3 citations: 3 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:6aee1dd97bdf · see in the full table