谢谢st大哥的解释
但是报告里面是说opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj }吧，
这句话的意思应该不是看原本数组中的数值大小的比较吧。

> 譬如a_l到a_k这一段是
> (l                   k)
>  5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 0
>  ^ ^       ^     ^ ^ ^
> 标了^的都是要的，譬如说那个4，以为后面都是0,1,2,3比4小，所以就要了
> 

• Re:But further observation reveals that only those indices in the set I = { l, k } ∪ { i : l < i < k ∧ opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj } } are worth considering. (99) frkstyc 2007-12-28 20:08:52
  • Re:But further observation reveals that only those indices in the set I = { l, k } ∪ { i : l < i < k ∧ opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj } } are worth considering. (225) Thank_you 2007-12-29 13:54:20
    • Re:But further observation reveals that only those indices in the set I = { l, k } ∪ { i : l < i < k ∧ opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj } } are worth considering. (310) frkstyc 2007-12-29 14:34:32
      • Re:But further observation reveals that only those indices in the set I = { l, k } ∪ { i : l < i < k ∧ opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj } } are worth considering. (133) Thank_you 2007-12-29 15:12:17
        • Re:But further observation reveals that only those indices in the set I = { l, k } ∪ { i : l < i < k ∧ opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj } } are worth considering. (204) frkstyc 2007-12-29 15:26:53
          • Re:But further observation reveals that only those indices in the set I = { l, k } ∪ { i : l < i < k ∧ opti > max i < j ≤ k { aj } } are worth considering. (171) Thank_you 2007-12-29 20:33:47