#16331: Game Theory: Build capacity to solve matching games in to Sage.
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: vinceknight | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.4
Component: game theory | Resolution:
Keywords: Game Theory, | Merged in:
Matching Games, | Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman,
Authors: Vince Knight, | Travis Scrimshaw
James Campbell | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Commit:
Branch: | fa2e5c1e380c6c42125e69748dcd3f8c71a6ef1d
u/vinceknight/game_theory__build_capacity_to_solve_matching_games_in_to_sage_|
Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by vinceknight):
Replying to [comment:96 kcrisman]:
> Most of these change look great. I think you got too clever in the
examples testing the fix of auto-creating names, though.
> {{{
> + sage: suit = {0: (-1, -2),
> + ....: 2: (-2, -2)}
> + sage: revr = {-1: (0, 1),
> + ....: -2: (1, 0)}
> ...
> + sage: suit = {0: (-1, -2),
> + ....: 1: (-2, -2)}
> + sage: revr = {-1: (0, 1),
> + ....: -3: (1, 0)}
> }}}
> These preferences sometimes refer to nonexistent players, and sometimes
repeat!
Woops: fixed those (apologies for you needing to pick up my sloppiness...
I'll blame the busy first term)
>
> Otherwise probably the eq business is what remains. Nice.
So I have fixed those: you'll note that I didn't put them in to the Player
class. I tried at first but we use Player equality differently in the
algorithm and this broke a few other things. I took a look at fixing those
but:
A. it was simpler to move the fix to the game class.
B. after thinking about it for a while I think it make sense to have a
player as something that could potentially have different preferences but
still be unique (I might have just tried really hard to convince myself of
this though). Perhaps further down the line we could look at players
deviating strategies (for whatever reason) and seeing the effect that
has...
If anyone feels very very strongly about the equality of players needing
to also pick up their preferences I could change that but it would require
careful rewriting of the algorithm. Let me know what you guys think.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16331#comment:98>
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.
