Opened 4 years ago

Closed 4 years ago

Last modified 4 years ago

#19593 closed defect (fixed)

interval-posets in Tamari lattice should be hashable..

Reported by: chapoton Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-6.10
Component: combinatorics Keywords:
Cc: ​VivianePons Merged in:
Authors: Frédéric Chapoton Reviewers: Travis Scrimshaw
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: 1ea9d4e (Commits) Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description

and they were.. But now:

sage: hash(TamariIntervalPosets(4)[0])
TypeError: <class 'sage.combinat.interval_posets.TamariIntervalPosets_all_with_category.element_class'> is not hashable

Change History (8)

comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by chapoton

  • Authors set to Frédéric Chapoton
  • Branch set to public/19593
  • Commit set to 58a413ae58e8a140c9f8a3bfda8aac79b775a7f7
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

New commits:

58a413atrac #19593 fixing hash for Tamari interval-posets

comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by chapoton

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

does not seem to work :(

comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by tscrim

In what way? I think your doctest is bad because posets are UniqueRepresentations, so, IIRC, the hash is the ID of the object. I think you should have a test like

sage: hash(TamariIntervalPosets(4)[0]) == hash(TamariIntervalPosets(4)[0])
True

comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 58a413ae58e8a140c9f8a3bfda8aac79b775a7f7 to 1ea9d4e03c3e8f89115760f92fad782c8925be13

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

1ea9d4etrac #19593 better hash for tamari intervals

comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by chapoton

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

let us try to use another more direct way to compute the hash

comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by tscrim

  • Reviewers set to Travis Scrimshaw
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

LGTM.

comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from public/19593 to 1ea9d4e03c3e8f89115760f92fad782c8925be13
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by chapoton

  • Commit 1ea9d4e03c3e8f89115760f92fad782c8925be13 deleted

damned, this is not working at all, unless there is no cover relations, which is the chosen example !!!

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.