I have an application consisting of 5 number LE's named Cut1, Cut2, Cut3, Cut4, Cut5, and 5 number LE's named Tag1, Tag2, Tag3, Tag4, and Tag5.
I want my application to scramble the five numbers in the Cut fields and place them in theTag fields.
I've been trying to use [For i = 1 to 5] programing along with Cut(i)= Tag(i) in order to move the contents of the Cut Fields into the Tag Fields.  However, the above programing will not work.
What am I doing wrong?  Thanks for any advice

I agree with the above. The @Field command will do what you want. But, in this case, since you only have 5 elements, for speed's sake you should probably just set each field without using a loop at all:

Cut1 = Tag1
Cut2 = Tag2
Cut3 = Tag3
Cut4 = Tag4
Cut5 = Tag5
 

Using a loop and @field would be recommended if you had many more elements to set.

BTW: Just wondering - are some of these elements being used where variables might be a better fit? Remember, variables are hundreds of times faster than elements. Always use a variable over an element, if you can.

Two suggestions, one with Sesame, one more general.

First, it sounds like matrix algebra might work best.  I had a course on that about 40 years ago, so I don't remember the details.  It is used for maximum/minimum problems, e.g., if we have 10 different things, how many of each should we use to get the smallest or largest result?  Basically it solves several linear equations at once, e.g.:

2x + 4y + 2z = 0
5x + 7y + 6z = 0
7x + 10y + 3z = 0


Second:

Do your widths fall into certain groups or are they completely random?  For instance, will you routinely have cuts in the 45-55 foot range?  A lot in the 2-4 foot range?

If you have a lot of small sections, probably the best way would be to sort the numbers from low to high and then keep adding until you exceed your limit.  Then subtract the smallest number until you are within your limit.  Starting with the smallest numbers will allow you the best granularity.

An alternative would be to go from largest down and as soon as you exceed your limit subtract the last one and then start with the smallest.  Unless your sections routinely are completely random, you should quickly find that either the low-to-hi or hi-down-then-low-up method routinely produces the best result.