#16331: Game Theory: Build capacity to solve matching games in to Sage.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vinceknight | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: game theory | Resolution:
Keywords: Game Theory, | Merged in:
Matching Games, | Reviewers:
Authors: | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | 0c19d87876a451c349448da3b27101f04162c985
u/vinceknight/game_theory__build_capacity_to_solve_matching_games_in_to_sage_|
Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
Thanks for these changes.
> I have made this change but this has been done in conjunction with other
changes: in particular `_sol_dict_` is now an attribute that includes the
same dictionary as before (so that it can be used for the bi-partite graph
method for example) but `solve` only returns the required output (as you
suggest).
I'm glad we agree this is a somewhat better solution, and I think it
simplifies the code in the long run as well.
> > * I think another word than 'complete' is needed in checking
completeness, because if `{3: (0, 2, 1)` was changed to `{3: (0, 2)` it
would still raise the error but seem "complete" in some sense...
>
> I'm not sure I actually understand this one. `{3:(0,2)` would not be
complete as `2` is not a valid player? Maybe I'm missing something. Very
happy to change vocabulary.
My point is that "(0,2,1)" is sort of "overcomplete", too many prefs,
while "(0,2)" has the "right" number but the wrong guys. But I don't know
what the standard vocabulary is here, that was my main point.
> > * Any rationale for the autoprefs?
>
> Not really... Do you think they should be something else?
I think that at least they should be explained clearly so people know how
to use them.
> > * And of course, if you REALLY want to use the `_Player` class, needs
doctests :)
>
> I think this has been done. Note that I need to import the `_Player`
class in the tests themselves: I hope that's ok.
Yes, that is standard practice in such cases.
> Thanks again for being so thorough: very much appreciated.
Not at all.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16331#comment:50>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
