Talk:Self-stabilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

To researchers in fault tolerance in distributed systems, self-stabilization is a very very important topic that is, if anything, inadequately covered. This article could and should be expanded, not shortened. robert.p.schaefer@baesystems.com

Absolutely, this is an important article. The problem is not the length of the article as such, but failing to create a proper lede section, so I changed the annotation from too-long to intro-rewrite. I think the opening para needs to focus on the history and significance (notability) of the field without wading too heavily into the definitional stuff. The Dijkstra paper won the 2003 PODC award. See http://www.podc.org/dijkstra/. Probably that should be stated, along with the motivation to pose and solve the problem, as informally as possible for a non-technical audience. The first major section could be definition or something like that where the technicalities are properly introduced. MaxEnt (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this is my fault. I really meant that the article had a too long introduction but I messed up with the templates. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Should include...[edit]

Since the example of token rings is introduced, a description of a self-stabilizing algorithm for token rings would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.164.101 (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-stabilization and...[edit]

Good Evening: Philosophophonos, is democracy self-stabilizing? Is to be self-stabilizing the same as to be fractal-capable? E.G. Every molecule is made of atoms, which can be different elements, so molecule is not the smallest whole unit. Atom is the smallest whole unit, from which innumerable molecules can be made, yet which all have the same "organs" as positrons, electrons, and neutrons. Atoms are then fractal-capable; as we know, becuase they are the building blocks of all stuff. What is the smallest WHOLE unit of Democracy; what is the axiom for ANY government, does democracy abide by that axiom? Is an individual a democracy of one, or is Ego the monarch? The Universal Four Forces are fractally self-stabilizing, so too the Laws of Motion, of Heat, of Waves.

The Roman, later the Catholic, fractal-capable, self-stabilizing, was the 4 minor orders and the 3 major orders. E.G. Starbucks uses the same pattern: 4 Minors are Barista; Shift Mgr. Assistant Store Mgr; Store Mgr. 3 Majors are District Mgr.; Regional Mgr.; and finally HQ. In reality, 6:7 of those have nothing to do with coffee. Only the barista deals with the very thing starbucks does. All the rest is the fractal-pattern, self-stabilized, cookie-cutter logistic network neccessary to keep the coffee flowing.

We mortal born are nodes, human society is SETI, the collective un/sub/consciousness is societies deus ex machina in the collections of self-fullfilling prophacies. Libraries and post offices are our e-hubs, now it is facebook, instead of cafes, wikipedia instead of libraries and classrooms, hives broken up and replaced with overlaping wifi nets via cellphone. Yet we as humans are not self-correcting for the deus ex machina, as we humans have come up with many forms of government. So, the final 2 questions are: is democracy inevitable, and, which form of democracy? Sincerely, Anonomouse 108.23.43.73 (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)