Same problem with my version, which was faster but equally wrong!
Mike On 02/09/2016 14:57, Raul Miller wrote:
Actually, if we try your approach on -8 2 4 3 1 6 we get _8 _2 _1 instead of _8 _4 _3 _1. Here's a brute force O(2^n) approach that I hacked up earlier - it obviously only works on short lists: increasing=: (-: /:~)@#~"1 #:@i.@^~&2@# longestinc=: ] #~ [: (#~ ([: (= >./) +/"1)) #:@I.@increasing We can do better, of course, but I have some other things I want to deal with, first. Thanks,
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
