On Thursday 08 November 2007 02:43, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > Hashing string is definitely one of the easiest ways to get a lot of
> > semantics that we want ... i.e. agreement with '=='. In all other
> > respects, it seems like one of the most awful hash algorithms one could
> > imagine. Howev
On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2007 10:42, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > > Sorry to reply to myself when I should have done my research
> > > beforehand. The issue is that multivariate polynomials over ZZ override
> > > hash and hash the tuple of tuple
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 10:42, Martin Albrecht wrote:
> > Sorry to reply to myself when I should have done my research beforehand.
> > The issue is that multivariate polynomials over ZZ override hash and hash
> > the tuple of tuples of exponents (roughly speaking). This is in stark
> > cont
> Sorry to reply to myself when I should have done my research beforehand.
> The issue is that multivariate polynomials over ZZ override hash and hash
> the tuple of tuples of exponents (roughly speaking). This is in stark
> contrast to the default implementation that hashes the string
> represe
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 08:33, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> I'd like some confirmation for the patch at
> http://www.sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/1075
> The purpose of the patch is to fix the lack of substitution in the
> following code snippet (it also has other ramifications in similar
> conte
Joel's posting led me to read the old thread (March '07, before I
joined the sage lists) which was very interesting.
python wants hashes to be defined so that x==y implies
hash(x)==hash(y), while Sage wants to be clever mathematically so that
"x==y" is possible for a lot of complicated reasons.
