Find minimum number of digits required to make a given number - c++

Question

We have to find the minimum number of digits required to make a given number, for example: 14 => 95 (9 + 5 = 14) is two digits which is the minimum to form 14.
int moves(int n) {
int m = 0; // Minimum count
while (n-9 >= 0) { // To place maximum number of 9's
n -= 9;
m++;
}
if (n == 0) { // If only nines made up the number
return m;
}
else {
m++;
return m;
}
}
I am getting a TLE (runtime time limit exceeded) by an online judge. How can I improve it or is there a better approach?

Answer 1

Your code starts by looking at how many times 9 fits into that number. This can be done way more easily:
int m = n/9;
This suffices since we do an integer division, in which the remainder is thrown away. Note that if n would be float or another floating type, this would not work.
The question left is if it is divisible by 9 or not. If not, we have one additional digit. This can be done by the modulo operator (made it verbose for ease of understanding):
bool divisible_by_nine = (n % 9 == 0);
Assuming that you might not know the modulo operator, it returns the remainder of an integer division, 47 % 9 = 2 since 47 / 9 = 5 remainder 2.
Without it, you would go with
int remainder = n - 9*m;
bool divisible = (remainder == 0);
Combined:
int required_digits(int number)
{
bool divisible = (number % 9 == 0);
return number/9 + (divisible ? 0 : 1);
}
Or in a single line, depending on how verbose you want it to be:
int required_digits(int number)
{
return number/9 + (number % 9 == 0 ? 0 : 1);
}
Since there isn't any loop, this is in Θ(1) and thus should work in your required time limit.
(Technically, the processor might as well handle the division somewhat like you did internally, but it is very efficient at that. To be absolutely correct, I'd have to add "assuming that division is a constant time operation".)

Answer 2

Your solution works fine. You can try the shorter:
return (n%9==0)? n/9 : n/9 +1 ;
Shorter, but less easy to read...
Or a compromise:
if (n%9==0) // n can be divided by 9
return n/9;
else
return n/9+1;

Answer 3

Explanation
We know that every number a can be represented as
(a_n * 10 ^ n) + ... + (a_2 * 10 ^ 2) + (a_1 * 10) + (a_0)
where a_k are digits
and 10^n = 11...11 * 9 + 1 (n digits 1).
Meaning that number 10^n can be represented as the sum of 11...11 + 1 digits.
Now we can write a as (a_n * 11..11 * 9 + a_n) + ...
After grouping by 9 (help, I don't know English term for this. Factoring?)
(a_n * 11..11 + a_n-1 * 11..11 + ... a_1) * 9 + (a_n + a_n-1 + ... + a_1 + a_0)
Which I'll write as b_9 * 9 + b_1.
This means that number a can be represented as the sum of b_9 digits 9 + how much is needed for b_1 (this is recursive by the way)
To recapitulate:
Let's call function f
If -10 < digit < 10, the result is 1.
Two counters are needed, c1 and c2.
Iterate over digits
For every ith digit, multiply by i digit number 11..11 and add the result to c1
Add the ith digit to c2
The result is c_1 + f(c_2)
And for practice, implement this in a non-recursive way.

Answer 4

As you guess, you need to iterate on a lower number to a bigger one, like 111119 is fine, but we want the lowest one... Your answer is wrong. The lowest would be 59!
You can brute force and it will work, but for a bigger number you will struggle, so you need to guess first: How many minimum digits do I need to find my solution?
For instance, if you want to find 42, just add as much 9 you need to overflow the result!
9 + 9 + 9 + 9 + 9 = 45. When you find the overflow, you know that the answer is lower than 99999.
Now how much do I need to decrease the value to get the correct answer, 3 as expected?
So 99996, 99969, etc... will be valid! But you want to lower, so you have to decrease the greatest unit (the left one of course!).
The answer would be 69999 = 42!
int n = 14;
int r = 0;
for (int i = i; i < 10 /*if you play with long or long long*/; i++)
if (i * 9 >= n)
{
for (int j = 0; j < i; j++)
r = r * 10 + 9;
while (is_correct(r, n) == false)
{
// Code it yourself!!
}
return (r);
}
Now it correctly returns true or false. You can make it return the number that r is actually a decrease what you need to decrease! It's not the fastest way possible, and there is always a faster way, with a binary shift, but this algorithm would work just fine!