{"article_processing_charge":"No","publisher":"ACM Press","main_file_link":[{"open_access":"1","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01421"}],"date_created":"2019-07-24T09:13:05Z","status":"public","month":"06","page":"986-996","oa_version":"Preprint","day":"01","date_updated":"2020-08-11T10:10:40Z","user_id":"2DF688A6-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87","type":"conference","title":"Why extension-based proofs fail","external_id":{"arxiv":["1811.01421"]},"language":[{"iso":"eng"}],"date_published":"2019-06-01T00:00:00Z","publication_identifier":{"isbn":["9781450367059"]},"year":"2019","abstract":[{"text":"It is impossible to deterministically solve wait-free consensus in an asynchronous system. The classic proof uses a valency argument, which constructs an infinite execution by repeatedly extending a finite execution. We introduce extension-based proofs, a class of impossibility proofs that are modelled as an interaction between a prover and a protocol and that include valency arguments.\r\n\r\nUsing proofs based on combinatorial topology, it has been shown that it is impossible to deterministically solve k-set agreement among n > k ≥ 2 processes in a wait-free manner. However, it was unknown whether proofs based on simpler techniques were possible. We show that this impossibility result cannot be obtained by an extension-based proof and, hence, extension-based proofs are limited in power.","lang":"eng"}],"scopus_import":1,"citation":{"ista":"Alistarh D-A, Aspnes J, Ellen F, Gelashvili R, Zhu L. 2019. Why extension-based proofs fail. Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. STOC: Symposium on Theory of Computing 986–996.","apa":"Alistarh, D.-A., Aspnes, J., Ellen, F., Gelashvili, R., & Zhu, L. (2019). Why extension-based proofs fail. In *Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing* (pp. 986–996). Phoenix, AZ, United States: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316407","ieee":"D.-A. Alistarh, J. Aspnes, F. Ellen, R. Gelashvili, and L. Zhu, “Why extension-based proofs fail,” in *Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing*, Phoenix, AZ, United States, 2019, pp. 986–996.","mla":"Alistarh, Dan-Adrian, et al. “Why Extension-Based Proofs Fail.” *Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing*, ACM Press, 2019, pp. 986–96, doi:10.1145/3313276.3316407.","ama":"Alistarh D-A, Aspnes J, Ellen F, Gelashvili R, Zhu L. Why extension-based proofs fail. In: *Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing*. ACM Press; 2019:986-996. doi:10.1145/3313276.3316407","short":"D.-A. Alistarh, J. Aspnes, F. Ellen, R. Gelashvili, L. Zhu, in:, Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, ACM Press, 2019, pp. 986–996.","chicago":"Alistarh, Dan-Adrian, James Aspnes, Faith Ellen, Rati Gelashvili, and Leqi Zhu. “Why Extension-Based Proofs Fail.” In *Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing*, 986–96. ACM Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313276.3316407."},"_id":"6676","author":[{"last_name":"Alistarh","id":"4A899BFC-F248-11E8-B48F-1D18A9856A87","full_name":"Alistarh, Dan-Adrian","first_name":"Dan-Adrian"},{"first_name":"James","full_name":"Aspnes, James","last_name":"Aspnes"},{"last_name":"Ellen","full_name":"Ellen, Faith","first_name":"Faith"},{"first_name":"Rati","full_name":"Gelashvili, Rati","last_name":"Gelashvili"},{"last_name":"Zhu","first_name":"Leqi","full_name":"Zhu, Leqi"}],"oa":1,"department":[{"_id":"DaAl"}],"publication":"Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing","doi":"10.1145/3313276.3316407","conference":{"name":"STOC: Symposium on Theory of Computing","end_date":"2019-06-26","location":"Phoenix, AZ, United States","start_date":"2019-06-23"},"publication_status":"published","quality_controlled":"1"}