Thanks Kris, On 2 May 2014 19:12, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've already corresponded about this privately, but I wanted to publicly > support this proposal and offer help with it, given that it is a lot closer > to my current research than anything else in Sage ;-) In particular, I > think it is very important to think carefully about exactly how subclassing > can work so that the most stuff is available for later additions. For > instance, one would be interested in making sure that any potential > symmetries on games could be activated/used. I'll be interested to see > how you make a class general enough for both the cooperative and > non-cooperative theory! Good luck. > I've thought about this a little bit and think that a general class would have properties relating to number of players and perhaps no more than that. Inheritance would then allow for more complex ideas. > Re: Gambit: "Gambit is Free/Open Source software, released under the terms > of the GNU General Public License, Version 2." Would that then only be an > optional package, license gurus? It also seems to have an interface with > lrs - see > http://www.gambit-project.org/gambit13/ideas.html#interface-with-lrslib At > least compiling and its Python extension seems straightforward enough, > also doesn't work on Windows without Cygwin, so it must be a perfect match > ;-) > I'm aware of Gambit but I thought that liaising directly to lrs would be ideal as it 'implements the same algorithm more efficiently and robustly'. I'm happy to talk about this though, although I've got no experience of using Gambit but have used lrs quite a lot - and it is in the 'extra' sage packages (although I'm not too sure how they work). > > In fact, they have several GSOC proposals this year: > http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/org2/google/gsoc2014/gambit Plus it's > led by other UK people. I think it would really be worth looking into > whether this is worth using the Python API for, even if it means changing > your summer student's work description to at some point check out how much > of what you want to do is a) already doable and b) could be "Sageified" > without too many hoops. > > Changing my students' work description is not at all an issue. At the very least my student would experiment with Gambit. > Anyway, no matter what the status of Gambit, this is a very good idea, > because I want to be able to convince people in my field that computation > is important. (Well, some people already think it is! But I want more.) > Thanks for the support. Is the next step for me to raise relevant tickets or is more discussion here a good idea? (Don't want to do this wrong :)). Thanks, Vince -- Dr Vincent Knight Cardiff School of Mathematics Senghennydd Road, Cardiff CF24 4AG (+44) 29 2087 5548 www.vincent-knight.com +Vincent Knight @drvinceknight Skype: drvinceknight -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
