#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: | 508d8193ea3d99dda90515bced36c8cd8e747224
public/game_theory/solve_matching_games-16331| Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vinceknight):
Replying to [comment:87 kcrisman]:
> More minor things.
> * Confused here:
> {{{
> a bespoke creation of preferences
> }}}
> Is this a Britishism I'm not aware of?
> * I feel like `revr` shouldn't be the name of just reviewers in this
example but then not in the init... unless that is to support something
along the lines of `MatchinGame(suit, revr)`, as the code implies? But
then that should be doctested.
> {{{
>
> def __init__(self, generator, revr=None):
> r"""
> Initialize a matching game and check the inputs.
>
> TESTS::
>
> sage: suit = {0: (3, 4), 1: (3, 4)}
> sage: revr = {3: (0, 1), 4: (1, 0)}
> sage: g = MatchingGame([suit, revr])
> sage: TestSuite(g).run()
> }}}
> Indeed, all input methods should be mentioned fairly clearly somewhere
at the top (maybe even an `INPUT` block? Though this isn't a function...
hmm) and you don't use this on in the huge useful top block either. But
in either case I am pretty sure that
> {{{
> TypeError("generator must be an integer or a pair of 2 dictionaries")
> }}}
> is wrong or not tested.
> * I'll let you figure out what is wrong with this one. I guarantee that
with correct input no one will ever notice it, though!
> {{{
> return 'A matching game with {} suitors and {}
reviewers'.format(
> len(self._reviewers), len(self._suitors))
> }}}
> * Really?
> {{{
> def __eq__(self, other):
> return (isinstance(other, MatchingGame)
> and set(self._suitors) == set(other._suitors)
> and set(self._reviewers) == set(other._reviewers))
> }}}
> But... what about the preferences? Is it still the same game if they
are different? (Maybe Travis asked this at some point.)
> * Has not, presumably.
> {{{
> Raise an error if the game has been solved yet.
> }}}
> * In `is_complete` I'd still really like some checks for preference
tuples that are the "wrong size" somehow. For instance, someone
accidentally types in `(1,2,2,3)` instead of `(1,2,3)`.
> * I'm still not quite happy with the `add_suitor` (presumably also
reviewer) default. I like that you now have the error check for the name
being doubled, but I think that the ''automatic'' addition of a suitor
shouldn't raise this error. If `name = len(self._suitors) + 1` raises
that error, couldn't one just keep adding one until it works? Sorry about
asking this, but I just know we want to make this very user-friendly since
most targeted users of this will not be as familiar with Sage or math
programs...
> * I think you need some examples where someone creates a game, and then
all of a sudden realizes they need to add (say) a suitor and reviewer, or
maybe they just do them by hand, but anyway where they need to add
preferences one at a time. You don't really have a method for this, just
`Player.pref` the list of preferences. That should have several good
examples.
> * Also, what if someone adds a player to a pre-existing game (well,
two!) and then has to update '''all''' preferences to make it complete?
Is that possible or supported? If not, how do we indicate this?
>
> I hope that continuing to ask these questions is okay. Really it is
already quite good, but I just want it to be great since it came from GSOC
and because this is such new stuff.
Please do continue to ask! The questions and review are very much
appreciated. We want to get it as close to perfect as possible.
James and I will chat about it and get on it this week some time! Thanks
:)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16331#comment:88>
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.
