now that Array.prototype.sort() is stable these solutions are correct

Brute force should've been stated in the description of the code, but it does encourage people to write more efficent code.

I initally decided to generate all of the permutations and then give back the next biggest one but tests stopped me from doing that.

ahhh! i was wondering that!

fixed

It is based on the original language, so cannot be changed

same in Ruby with [4,5] expecting 1 instead of 0

Yeah I don't think it would time out since n is being divided smaller like tacoslayer said. You are right that there's no need to keep iterating once it has reached the square root of the number,

BUUUUuuuuut, because this algorithm divides n each time it finds a factor, it will usually get cut short before then anyway. It would only iterate all the way through when n has been reduced to a prime number. not really such a problem generally... but there's no reason not to cut it off at the square root since not all prime numbers are small........it'd be the difference for example between iterating 151051 times and iterating only 388 times.

Optimising your solution may be possible, but this is not a kata issue. Closing.

OP solved it, closing