The Two Generals’ Problem

Commentaires

  1. Tom Scott

    Tom ScottIl y a 4 mois

    Yes, I had help with the graphics for this series. There's no way I'd have animated that myself! On that note, thanks to Dashlane for sponsoring and helping me hire an animator: their free trial link is www.dashlane.com/tomscott

  2. Akin Turhan

    Akin TurhanIl y a mois

    I have thought about dashlane I want to know the advantage over Google chrome random password generator and manager that is synced with one master password. they don't know any of the passwords either.

  3. The Superginge

    The SupergingeIl y a mois

    As glad as I am that you're getting sponsored, I feel I should tell people that Firefox is starting to offer this password security option for free, though before anyone gets angry at me, I don't know what level of security it is, comparatively, I just want to make people aware of options!

  4. Matti Lüdke

    Matti LüdkeIl y a 2 mois

    Why not send a person from each army to the middle of the valley. Then both discuss a time and go back to their army. That way they will know if the message was received by the other army. As the Danger of the route lies in the middle of the valley they will get back safely.

  5. صالح

    صالحIl y a 2 mois

    Hey there is a way to solve the 2 genrals problem and it's a horne or war drums because they are loud enugh to hear

  6. Dark Thoughts

    Dark ThoughtsIl y a 3 mois

    Now you know the issues protocol standards committees have to 'foresee' when designing a communication protocol.

  7. Name

    NameIl y a 13 heures

    Just make an agreement that 2 or more acknowledgements means you can attack

  8. Jo 1337

    Jo 1337Il y a jour

    It's 2 am and I regret nothing

  9. Vysair

    VysairIl y a 4 jours

    Or maybe both general could send dozen more message until it hit certain threshold and that will confirm it.

  10. 10k12

    10k12Il y a 6 jours

    2:35 why not let them meet in the middle, so if they perish, they perish together and no message is received, but if they manage to meet, they can return and there are no threats on the way back to the generals.

  11. Shaurya Pant

    Shaurya PantIl y a 6 jours

    Well, after both the teams have received confirmation of the other party that they know that you know and will go at 8PM, I don't see any further need of sending messengers. Can someone explain, please?

  12. Andre L

    Andre LIl y a 6 jours

    How come this problem exists at all, if the proposed time is 8 pm, and both of them acknowledged the acknowledgments, then why would A and B need to keep sending acknowledgments? They both acknowledged the proposal and acknowledgment, so it's already planned? They both already know that it made it to the other side at least twice, so what's the problem? This just feels like it's not really a problem.... How is this line of reasoning incorrect?

  13. Markus B

    Markus BIl y a 7 jours

    I should be asleep but general B didn’t give me a confirmation

  14. john wick

    john wickIl y a 7 jours

    Simply. General A sends a messenger which returns after delivery of the message. If the messenger does not return after a suitable time span. It is safe to assume something happend and another messenger needs to be sent

  15. Space Griffin

    Space GriffinIl y a 8 jours

    but wouldn't a and b know they've received the message by the third message?

  16. DukeOfEarle88

    DukeOfEarle88Il y a 8 jours

    £7.74 word.

  17. UberKrassMann

    UberKrassMannIl y a 8 jours

    2:55 starts sweating.....

  18. Skepty

    SkeptyIl y a 9 jours

    Just tell them to make a fire signal after they do, as confirmation. Not that hard.

  19. Ashor

    AshorIl y a 10 jours

    for the two generals, couldnt one side send a messenger with the message telling them to attack at a certain time (sundown) but to ensure they both know they both have to shoot a cannon ball to the west of the other general at sunrise) if they both observe the cannon ball west of them then they know they will attack at sundown

  20. Midhunraj R Pillai

    Midhunraj R PillaiIl y a 10 jours

    I wonder how the generals problem is unsolvable. Please correct me whats the mistake of the solution below, Step1: General A sends message saying attack at 6pm (Here, A establishes the time) Step 2: General B gets the message, sends back an acknowledgement 1 for the message 'we go the time' (B gets the time) Step 3: General A gets the ACK 1 (now, A knows that B got the time of attack. But B won't attack because B don't know that ACK 1 is reached at A. so..) A sends a confirmation ACK 2 back Step 4: General B gets the ACK 2 (now, B knows that both A and B establishes the time. Also B got the ACK 2, meaning B knows that ACK 1 reached A. But B knows that A won't attack until A confirm that B got the ACK 2. so...) B sends a confirmation ACK 3 back Ahhhh this trend continues and no one will attack since they cannot make sure that the previous ACK sent by them is reached at the other end!!! I am sorry (T_T)

  21. Ivan farlenkov

    Ivan farlenkovIl y a 11 jours

    Have generals send messagers at set periods of time even when there is nothing to send. If there is no messager, ask about it in the next message.

  22. Gareth H

    Gareth HIl y a 10 jours

    @Ivan farlenkov You really do not get it. Oh well, nevermind. Stick to flipping burgers.

  23. Ivan farlenkov

    Ivan farlenkovIl y a 10 jours

    @Gareth H Why not? If messagee is lost, request to resend will be eventualy get to the other side.

  24. Gareth H

    Gareth HIl y a 10 jours

    That is the ping approximation that is used. But it is not a solution to the problem, there is no solution.

  25. Monsieur P.

    Monsieur P.Il y a 11 jours

    My bank card would’ve texted me to confirm charge after being pinged to debit my account identical amount of money. It’s kind of stupid that nobody selling the food didn’t notice.

  26. Monsieur P.

    Monsieur P.Il y a 11 jours

    😂 these damn apps!

  27. novicetheaf

    novicetheafIl y a 12 jours

    This is a classic lack of dev testing prior to sending it for testing prior to deploying it to the end user, and QA testing.

  28. Kevi Kiru

    Kevi KiruIl y a 12 jours

    Even your paid promotions are interesting to listen to!

  29. Oasia

    OasiaIl y a 12 jours

    Why dont the say just to fire a cannon if they recieve the message

  30. Julian Danzer

    Julian DanzerIl y a 12 jours

    2:57 umm...

  31. Floofzy Kitty

    Floofzy KittyIl y a 14 jours

    1:38 What are you talking about? Of course they made it to the other side. Just not the side they intended.

  32. Muhammad Adam

    Muhammad AdamIl y a 17 jours

    Surely after the 4 messengers they wouldn't need confirmation any further confirmation because both would have already known that it's agreed upon

  33. Terrain

    TerrainIl y a 17 jours

    You didn’t solve the two generals problem, you solved another problem created by it being unsolvable, which arguably is more dangerous than the two generals problem

  34. BeforeReform

    BeforeReformIl y a 18 jours

    per your ad... there is *always* the possibility of brute force getting through. It could take years, or decades on average, but there is always a chance someone gets lucky.

  35. Angelmarauder

    AngelmarauderIl y a 19 jours

    TCP/IP

  36. its_a_trab

    its_a_trabIl y a 19 jours

    You could just send the original guy back.

  37. Emerald Block Boat

    Emerald Block BoatIl y a 19 jours

    I'd say that if B received two verifications then do it

  38. TARINunit9

    TARINunit9Il y a 20 jours

    Proposition for the two generals problem: instead of sending one messenger, send a pair of messengers. One messenger stays at camp B and the other returns to camp A. If no messengers return to camp A, then it's obvious that the message was intercepted on one of the two trips, so you send another pair

  39. Lloyd Thorpe

    Lloyd ThorpeIl y a 23 jours

    What they should have done is just starve the castle out like they most commonly did

  40. The Nintendo Fan

    The Nintendo FanIl y a 23 jours

    Honestly, the red army would automatically assume the blue army got the message and would attack on that time

  41. Eric ON

    Eric ONIl y a 23 jours

    Atleast once invocation solves this issue as well. I.e. let the client keep spamming the same request until one confirm has been recieved.

  42. Emil Sørensen

    Emil SørensenIl y a 25 jours

    I'd definitely not like having a master password that, if lost, renders my entire online life unrecoverable. How can you possibly make your one password unforgettable? Chisel it into an immovable rock?

  43. ͔ ͔

    ͔ ͔Il y a 26 jours

    Send the entire army as the messenger

  44. Beowulf Macbethson

    Beowulf MacbethsonIl y a 26 jours

    I was watching a video about Morgoth from Lord of the Rings, why am I here. Also your video is great and informative.

  45. TIMΞ СнΛИGΣ

    TIMΞ СнΛИGΣIl y a 27 jours

    But the generals would know after a few acknowledgements? What am I missing here

  46. andrew allen

    andrew allenIl y a 27 jours

    Good grief, a Hewlett-Packard computer I can do component level repairs and maintenance on!

  47. man0z

    man0zIl y a 28 jours

    I may have double paid for Nandos last night

  48. IlluminatiBG

    IlluminatiBGIl y a 28 jours

    We solved this problem for banking application at work. The app is designed to work offline and synchronize when online. The acknowledgment problem is that you do not know if a message did not reach the server or it reached the server, but the confirmation was lost. As a result each message is uniquely identified in the client and safe to repeat. You can resend a message to the server a million times, but it will result in one transaction only for both client and the server.