> CRDT literally means Conflict-free Replicated Data Type.

Git could be "conflict-free" with a simple `rand(ours, theirs)`.

It would be useless, but technically "conflict-free". Is the addition or removal of that rand function really, pragmatically the difference in the answer to "what is a CRDT?"

>Git could be "conflict-free" with a simple `rand(ours, theirs)`.

This would still be order dependent, and different replicas would not converge.

Git is unambiguously not a CRDT, and adding extra rules on top of git to try to turn it into one doesn't make git one, even if you succeed. You can do that with a pencil and paper, but that doesn't make paper a CRDT.

`rand` wouldn’t work because all peers must reach the same state without coordination.

This is definitely not true.

Are you open to understanding why this isn't true? If so, I'm happy to help you come to the correct understanding; please ask whatever questions are necessary. Otherwise, then, well, okay!

There are CDTS that have "multiple versions", which look an awful lot like conflicts to me, ie, the Multi-Value Register in this paper:

https://inria.hal.science/inria-00555588/

Multi-value registers are CRDTs for sure. Conflict-free doesn't mean that values can't have concurrent histories (or, as you say, "multiple versions") -- it means that the merge operation always succeeds.

What's the definition of a conflict, then? Equations welcome.

Feel free to read up on CRDTs; I'm confident this will answer your question.

The short answer is, roughly, that a conflict is a discrepancy in state which cannot be mechanically resolved.

I've read a few CRDT papers. Perhaps you could name a specific one.