Besides making two flat-out incorrect statements, I also don't think this is very useful.

The examples are cute but aren't relevant to most users of dicts and sets. Also, it isn't the sets or dicts themselves that give rise to these examples; instead, it is that numbers were intentionally designed to support cross-type equality comparisons and to follow the rule that equal values should have the same hashes. This is documented elsewhere.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm marking it is closed as a low quality edit.

@rhettinger I understand that the examples on hashing isn't as useful, but does the dict example about same keys but different values not warrant at least something? There seems to be twoish open issues on this, and I don't think the behavior's exactly intuitive. If it is this behavior that's documented somewhere, then I reckon that some sort of link or reference would help.

When you mark it closed due to low quality, is it due to examples not thorough enough, wording too short, or something else? I would like to improve the docs so knowing what exactly can be changed other than the incorrectness would be helpful to me.