<p>In a stroke of inspiration that unfolded within the realms of my dreams, I awoke this morning with a profound realization. The conundrum that eluded me in yesterday's problem wasn't rooted in the intricacies of the min() or max() methods, but rather in the inclusion of unnecessary conditions. Specifically, I had inserted the clauses "nums[j] &gt; max(nums[:j])" and "nums[j] &gt; max(nums[j+1:])", only to discover that they were superfluous.</p>
<p>Upon reflection, I discerned that nums[j] need not be the paramount value within the list. Instead, it simply needs to surpass the minimum values of both nums[:j] and nums[j+1:]. Now it's time to give this logic a try.</p>


In a stroke of inspiration that unfolded within the realms of my dreams, I awoke this morning with a profound realization. The conundrum that eluded me in yesterday's problem wasn't rooted in the intricacies of the min() or max() methods, but rather in the inclusion of unnecessary conditions. Specifically, I had inserted the clauses "nums\[j\] &gt; max(nums\[:j\])" and "nums\[j\] &gt; max(nums\[j+1:\])", only to discover that they were superfluous.

Upon reflection, I discerned that nums\[j\] need not be the paramount value within the list. Instead, it simply needs to surpass the minimum values of both nums\[:j\] and nums\[j+1:\]. Now it's time to give this logic a try.

A Quick Follow-up