I am only a student, not a guru, but...

You can avoid the problem with (R52) not giving valid results by fixing it
at the source. Define a sub-set of the values in column A that are valid.
Instead of getting the MIN of column A, get the MIN of the sub-set. The same
for the other columns. Then (R52) should always be valid.
--
Gary''s Student - gsnu200753


"Mac" wrote:

Assume four columns - A, B, C, D, filled with values (double prec. format);
assume a row (R50), which shows a min() value for each of the columns; assume
another row (R51), which shows a sum() of the four values in R50; assume
another row (R52) which, via index() and match(), shows the row positions of
the data values that generate the result in R51; generally - what I'm
searching this way is the smallest possible aggregate of four values, one
from each column.. The problem: sometimes the values at coordinates shown in
R52 are not 'valid' (the data values are parameters of objects and only
special objects can be put together) and in that case, I need to retreive the
'next smallest aggregate' following the one in R51. I think of an algo:
(((each A sum each B) sum each C) sum each D) = we have a set of all
possible sums; sort this set ascending; pick first, pick second, ....; but:

1.) how to do this??

2.)for 50 values in each column this would generate a huge set of values;
can you do in Excel like - hold this set in memory and only give my worksheet
the results?

3.)even if I get to picking the e.g. five smallest sums of the set, how do I
find out the row coordinates of the values that generated this sum?

Can someone please help me to solve this beast of a problem?