So it doesn't.  But it says it won't split quickly! :)  Do you have a  
solutions for these and list of other tests I could throw at it?

Thanks,
Bill

On Feb 8, 2006, at 10:38 AM, Manuel Kasten wrote:

> Bill Dolinar wrote:
>> =begin
>> Here's my solution.  It uses recursion and doesn't check unnecessary
>> combinations.  I don't think it misses any, but that seems pretty
>> hard to test.  It checks for a valid combination by looking for the
>> smallest number of items in a set first since it's faster to rule
>> out.  It uses a Combinations class to iterate through the
>> possible combinations.  The class also keeps a running sum of the
>> current combination to reduce the number of additions/subtractions.
>> =end
>
> Hi.
>
> It doesn't split
>
> 61, 63, 21, 87, 64, 84, 96, 35, 14, 74, 20, 62, 36, 64, 6, 14, 54,  
> 53, 46, 84, 62, 10, 64, 33, 32, 24, 89
>
> 8-ways
>
>
> nor
>
>
> 7, 21, 30, 54, 52, 99, 77, 85, 56, 28, 80, 17, 60, 60, 38, 68, 53,  
> 80, 75, 85, 9
>
> 7-ways
>
> Manuel Kasten
>