It's smart but for sure it may cause some misunderstanding when someone reads it

Although this is nice and concise, it's an O(nlogn) algorithm, when an O(n) solution is possible.

very clever -zero idea you could form another q within a ternary.

I agree.

Should not be Best Practices because it gets very bad to read if you have many cases. It is Clever, though.

[13035, 6618, 13056, 20912, 1119, 13035, 6618, 6618, 8482, 13056]  --> 10
[13035, 6618, 13056, 20912,  x  , 13035, 6618, 6618, 8482, 13056]  --> 9
[13035,   x , 13056, 20912,  x  , 13035,   x ,   x , 8482, 13056]  --> 6
[13035,   x , 13056, 20912,  x  , 13035,   x ,   x ,   x , 13056]  --> 5
[  x  ,   x , 13056, 20912,  x  ,   x  ,   x ,   x ,   x , 13056]  --> 3
[  x  ,   x ,   x  , 20912,  x  ,   x  ,   x ,   x ,   x ,   x  ]  --> 1

I get [10, 9, 6, 5, 1] for the third test case in python. Can anyone confirm that it's my code that give me the wrong answer?
Thanx!

Ah, OK, I see. Removed, thanks ;-)

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough (might be... ? Or I didn't understand what you both told me, sorry).
This is in the "initial solution" part, that the n is still present (even after I "reset" the kata). I get that :

def cut_the_ropes(n,arr):
    #your code here

IIRC, you can also copy your solution, press "reset", then paste it back to get the current tests

NO,no.. I've already removed it. ;-)
If you still can saw them, just because CW saved a copy of sample tests for you. They will not change with my fix operation. So you have to remove them youself, sorry sir ;-)

Most of time are spent on arr.map and arr.min.
I think you should find a better algorithms to do this task ;-)
Perhaps a sort will help you a lot ;-)

Thanks guys !

But still one thing to do (in python and ruby) : remove the n in the solution sample. ;)