Hi! On 2016-10-07, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: > On 2016-10-07 13:35, Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote: >> The implementation of __hash__ on finite fields claims to be the same as >> for 'object'. > > Could be: > > $ sage -c 'print(hash(object()))' > 8790924175895 > $ sage -c 'print(hash(object()))' > 8771665328407
Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the hash of object() relies on the address in memory. Which is fine, because by default comparison of objects is by identity (i.e., by memory address). And on finite fields, it is fine as long as elements of finite fields are cached (which is the case for small-enough fields) and the fields themselves are unique parents: sage: GF(17)(3) is GF(17)(3) True Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
