Revision as of 09:11, 16 March 2019 edit Citation bot (talk \| contribs) Bots 5,865,191 edits m Alter: journal, template type. Add: year, chapter, pages, chapter-url, isbn, doi, author pars. 1-3. Removed or converted URL. Formatted dashes. \| You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. \| User-activated. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:17, 28 April 2019 edit undo Andrewjameskirk (talk \| contribs) 30 edits m the second confirmation is sent by the 1st general, not the 2nd Next edit →
Line 21: To be sure, the second general may send a confirmation back to the first: "I received your message and will attack at 0900 on August 4." However, the messenger carrying the confirmation could face capture and the second general may hesitate, knowing that the first might hold back without the confirmation. Further confirmations may seem like a solution—let the ~~second~~first general send a second confirmation: "I received your confirmation of the planned attack at 0900 on August 4." However, this new messenger from the ~~second~~first general is liable to be captured, too. Thus it quickly becomes evident that no matter how many rounds of confirmation are made, there is no way to guarantee the second requirement that each general be sure the other has agreed to the attack plan. Both generals will always be left wondering whether their last messenger got through. ==Proof==

Two Generals' Problem: Difference between revisions