#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: | 17748d15c0b0c11044fb7696022d4143fe1056e4
u/vinceknight/game_theory__build_capacity_to_solve_matching_games_in_to_sage_|
Stopgaps:
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:109 kcrisman]:
> Oh, can you? I thought it was the other way around, that two games with
unequal input data would be the same.
Well, that was a problem with my first implementation of `__eq__`. I was
saying without a `__eq__`, then the pickling issue crops up.
> In any case, I think that is fixed in
[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=7d5d52a738959ba8fde79a60d39eb0fed0156041
this commit], and players explained in
[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/commit/?id=8b049cea8efb051e59af76f3cda5c11e10fbe674
this one] - you can check if you agree with me.
Currently if you add the suitors (or reviewers) in different order, but
everything else is the same, they should compare as not equal (I can't
test right now). This should be the same game. What I really worry about
is that the iteration over the input dicts might end up being different
for two equal but not identical dicts (perhaps depending upon how the
dicts were constructed). Granted, the likelihood of this occurring is very
small, so it's not a big deal.
I missed that in the `__eq__`, and it doesn't appear in the public
documentation. I'd (very weakly) prefer something at the class level since
the players can be viewed outside of the game.
Actually, in order to make the `Player` hashable, they must only compare
equal by `name` (since we treat that part as immutable).
Perhaps I'm being too nitpicky.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16331#comment:110>
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.
