clearly the order of the elements in the set does not matter, so we can assume that we have a set of k non-increasing positive integers which we write as p_1 >= ... >= p_k
for each position j, we have at least j elements at least as big as p_j
as j increases from 1 to k, p_j decreases from p_1 to p_k -
if those sequences do not cross, then the value is k (consider the integer 20, repeated 6 times, or the 6 integers from 20 down to 15; both have at least 6 elements larger than 6) - or maybe the answer is 1 - the definition is ambiguous
if those sequences cross (as they do in the example), then i think the answer is where they cross
but the statement of the property in question needs to be refined to be much clearer about the quantifiers and how they scope the minimum - you might want to ask instead what is the largest N for which there are at least N elements of value at least N, because as long as you use positive integers, the minimum value for N is always 1
in either case, i think that there are sets with any positive integer answer you want (as long as it is no more than the size k of the set)
Yes, I agree that h can be the correct function by interpreting the first description of the problem posed by Afaz. However, the example he showed seems requiring that the number of elements (4) should be equal to the minimum value (4). It would be interesting if Afaz can better clarify is question. However, I think we have answered to both kinds of problems.