ну я в данном чатике находился достаточное время, чтобы сложить мнение по крайней мере о сетевом аспекте личности. плюс был ряд косвенных признаков, т.к. он все-таки локальный экстремум и не засветиться по другим каналам ему крайне сложно

ну я впрочем списываю это на недостоверность каналов, уверен, что люди, знающие его лично, могут сказать немало хорошего

`To show that no amount of user protocol can
solve the problem in a manner to dissipate the
anxiety of both parties as to the outcome of a
transaction, consider the following model.
A group of gangsters are about to pull off a
big Job. The plan of action is prepared down to
the last detail~ Some of the men are holed up in a
warehouse across town, awaiting precise instructions. It is absolutely essential that the two
groups act with complete reliance on each other in
executing the plan.`

Of course, they will never get around to putting the plan into action, because the following
sequence of events is bound to take place.
i. A messenger is dispatched across town,
with instructions from the boss.
2. The messenger reaches his destination.
At this point both parties know the plan
of action. But the boss doesn't know
that his message got through (muggings
are a common occurrence). So the messenger is sent back, to confirm the message.
3. The messenger reaches the boss safely.
Now, everybody knows the message got
through. Of course, the men in the
warehouse are not aware that step 3
occurred, and must he reassured. Off
goes the messenger.
4. Now the men in the warehouse too know
that step 3 was successful, but unless
they communicate their awareness...
.......
...,...
Note that the needs of both parties are quite reasonable. They simply want to reach a state where
(I) The original message (i.e., the plan of
action) is successfully delivered, and
(2) Both parties know that they are in
mutual agreement that (i) occurred.
Fact The sequence cannot terminate successfully.
Proof (a) Clearly the sequence contains at least
one message of importance.
(b) Assume that it is possible to reach the
desired state after a finite sequence
of messages. Then there must exist a
number n > 1 such that n is the length
of the shortest sequence which gets us
to this state. Since this is the shortest sequence, the last message in it is
important: if the n'th message gets
lost, the desired state cannot be
reached. The sender of the n'th message must receive acknowledgment.
This means that the sequence is at
least of length n + i. The assumption
is contradicted and the sequence cannot
be finite.

у меня одного ощущение, что Proof это сплошь наебалово?

в каком месте ощущение? протоколы не обеспечивают консенсус в общем случае

возможно, модель слишком редуцирована и взаимных предарительных договоренностей не предусматривает?

я про само доказательство. конкретно про:

Since this is the shortest sequence, the last message in it is
important: if the n'th message gets
lost, the desired state cannot be
reached. The sender of the n'th message must receive acknowledgment.
This means that the sequence is at
least of length n + i.

если я сделаю "Assume that it is possible to reach the
desired state after a finite sequence
of messages", то никакая конфирмация мне уже не нужна по определению.

т.к. desire state уже и есть конечное состояние.

нечего конфирмировать. все обо всем договорились.

импликация неверная кмк

(хотя само утверждение верное, я конкретно про доказательство этого утверждения).

Меж тем, Италия обошла Китай по фрагам.

Го

        match op.AccessKey with
        | Some connectionString ->
            match op.DatabaseId with
            | Some dbId ->
                match op.ContainerName with
                | Some cn ->
                    match op.Query with
                    | Some query ->
                        let client = new CosmosClient(op.Endpoint, connectionString, clientOps)
                        let db = client.GetDatabase dbId
                        let container = db.GetContainer cn
                        let qd = QueryDefinition query
                        op.Parameters
                        |> List.map (fun (key, value) -> qd.WithParameter(key, value))
                        |> ignore

                        container.GetItemQueryIterator<'T> qd |> AsyncSeq.ofAsyncEnum
                    | None -> failwith "No query provided"
                | None -> failwith "No container name provided"
            | None -> failwith "No dabase id provided"
        | None -> failwith "No access key provided"

пРиКоЛьНеНьКо

аппликатив нужен

блин