On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:00:23 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> - the problem is that lists are not hashable, and considered unequal.
> The problem is that in general testing objects for equality is far
> from obvious, might be algorithmically unsolvable, etc.
>
> Why is Set
>
>> - the problem is that lists are not hashable, and considered unequal.
>> The problem is that in general testing objects for equality is far
>> from obvious, might be algorithmically unsolvable, etc.
>>
>> Why is Set trying then? I can see in the documentation that "Sets with
>
See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23324 for some discussion.
Am Donnerstag, 25. Juni 2020 19:19:26 UTC+2 schrieb Nils Bruin:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:00:23 AM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>> - the problem is that lists are not hashable, and considered unequal.
>> The
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:49 PM Ars-Magna wrote:
>
> Is the following a bug ?
>
> sage: Set([[(Integer(0), Integer(0)), (Integer(1), Integer(1))],[(Integer(0),
> Integer(0)), (Integer(1), Integer(1))]]).cardinality()
>
> 2
hard to say. Note that
sage: Set([[(0,0), (1,1)],[(0,0),
Is the following a bug ?
sage: Set([[(Integer(*0*), Integer(*0*)), (Integer(*1*), Integer(*1*
))],[(Integer(*0*), Integer(*0*)), (Integer(*1*), Integer(*1*
))]]).cardinality()
2
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe
Try with "set" and you will see an informative error : lists are not
hashable
Le jeudi 25 juin 2020 13:49:00 UTC+2, Ars-Magna a écrit :
>
> Is the following a bug ?
>
> sage: Set([[(Integer(*0*), Integer(*0*)), (Integer(*1*), Integer(*1*
> ))],[(Integer(*0*), Integer(*0*)), (Integer(*1*),
