Consistency here is not in the same sense as ACID consistency. ACID consistency is about transactions, this is about the differences of data between servers. Please fix.
I can disprove the theorem easily as it is worded in this article: a readonly distributed system. Note there was no requirement mentioned that the data in the distributed system changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarnott (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't say "obviating the need for availability" -- just say "obviating availability."
I don't understand how the article can at the same time declare a certain assert a theorem in the lead section and then proceed to explain that that's not the proven assert. The formulation used by Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch needs to be presented as a theorem, and then the history section can contain the conjecture; or the article needs to be about the conjecture and proceed to explain what's actually the theorem. --Nemo 17:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this part notable or not?
>In 2002, Seth Gilbert and Nancy Lynch of MIT published a formal proof of Brewer's conjecture, rendering it a theorem. This last claim has been criticized, however, this reference does not offer a peer-reviewed formal proof – just an informal assertion on a blog posting.
Either the blog post is notable and thus stays in the article, or it is not notable and should be removed from the article. Introducing an argument just to dismiss it means this either this sentence violates NPOV or the reference violates Notability. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)