<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the correctness of Egalitarian Paxos · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.10917/</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/1906.10917/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the correctness of Egalitarian Paxos — mentioned by otrack</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45930534</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1906.10917:45930534</guid><pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 19:00:21 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you, dgacmu! We are currently working on a TLA+ specification with master&amp;#x27;s students, and we plan to verify it with TLC and Apalache. I discovered that Iulian&amp;#x27;s TLA+ specification was missing a ballot variable [1] by injecting a trace, because exhaustive exploration was not tractable. Therefore, state-space explosion is likely to become a problem (systems of interest contain 7–9 processes with non‑transitive conflicts). In that case, intermediate abstractions will be necessary, which may naturally lead us to theorem proving. Once the specification is ready, I&amp;#x27;ll post about it here. :)…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1906.10917/"&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>
