<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Linearizable Implementations Do Not Suffice for Randomized Distributed Computation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1103.4690/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1103.4690/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Linearizable Implementations Do Not Suffice for Randomized Distributed Computation — mentioned by aphyr</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086783</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1103.4690:12086783</guid><pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:14:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Most people require that linearizable execution must happen as-if it matches a global clock. Simply requiring that the effects of a transaction happen within the start/end time of the partition executing the transaction does not guarantee this. I&amp;#x27;m not sure what you mean by &amp;quot;within the start/end time of the partition executing the transaction&amp;quot;. Nothing in the informal definition I provided mentioned partitions, or even process-local orders (that&amp;#x27;d be sequential consistency) so ... yeah, I dunno where you got this from. I agree that linearizability is a global real-time constraint, and I use…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1103.4690/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DC</category></item></channel></rss>
