那就是我写错了

> 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。
> 

• 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