I want to divide a number e.g. input number i.e. 40 into different token(30 parts) numbers randomly selected from a range and their sum must be equal to input number i.e 40.
Edit:
Max Range is should be 40% and minimum should be 0.
example:
range = (0,4)
1+1+0+1+1+0+3+0+3+0+0+2+0+4+4+1+1+0+1+1+0+3+0+4+0+2+2+0+4+1 = 40.
Actually in real world Showing results for scenario I am having a sum of product users expressions which i need to populate randomly into a record set for each day in last month. I am using php but unable to get the algorithm to process such situation.
Simple approach exploits "trial and error" method. Suitable for reasonable small input values.
Note - it might work long time when n is close to p*maxx. If such case is possible, it would more wise to distribute "holes" rather than "ones" (the second code)
import random
def randparts(n, p, maxx):
lst = [0] * p
while n > 0:
r = random.randrange(p)
if lst[r] < maxx:
n -= 1
lst[r] += 1
return lst
print(randparts(20, 10, 4))
>>> [2, 0, 3, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 0, 3]
def randparts(n, p, maxx):
if p * maxx >= n * 2:
lst = [0] * p
while n > 0:
r = random.randrange(p)
if lst[r] < maxx:
n -= 1
lst[r] += 1
else:
lst = [maxx] * p
n = maxx * p - n
while n > 0:
r = random.randrange(p)
if lst[r] > 0:
n -= 1
lst[r] -= 1
return lst
print(randparts(16, 10, 4))
print(randparts(32, 10, 4))
>> [2, 0, 0, 3, 4, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2]
>> [3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0, 3, 3, 4, 3]
Since you mentioned that it is for 'a record set for each day in last month', I assume that the number of tokens could also be 28, or 31, and since you said 'randomly', here is what I would do:
1. create a function that takes in:
a. The number to sum to (40 in your example).
b. The maximum number of a single token (4 in your example).
c. The number of tokens (30 in your example).
2. Within the function, create an array the size of the number of tokens (28, 30, 31, or whatever)
3. Initialize all elements of the array to zero.
4. Check to make sure that it is possible to achieve the sum given the maximum single token value and number of tokens.
5. While I need to increment a token (sum > 0):
a. Select a random token.
b. Determine if the value of the token can be incremented without going over the max single token value.
c. If it can, then increment the token value and decrement the sum.
d. If the token cannot be incremented, then go back to 5a.
6. Return the array of tokens, or however you want them back (you didn't specify).
Here is an example in c#:
public int[] SegmentSum(int sum, int maxPart, int parts)
{
if (sum < 0 || maxPart < 0 || parts < 0 || parts * maxPart < sum)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException;
Random rnd = new Random();
int[] tokens = Enumerable.Repeat(0, parts).ToArray();
while(sum > 0)
{
int token = rnd.Next(parts);
if (tokens[token] < maxPart)
{
tokens[token]++;
sum--;
}
}
return tokens;
}
Hope this helps you.
Related
This question is asked in the interview. I am still not able to find what should be right approach to attempt this problem.
Given an array = [7,2,2] find the minimum number of transfer required to make array elements almost equal. If this is not possible the larger elements should come to the left side.
In above example the final state of array would be [4,4,3] and the answer will be 2+ 1 =3.
We are transfering 2 from 7 to first 2 and then we are transfering another 1 from 7 to 2.
If the input is [2,2,7] then the answer will be 4 since we need to keep bigger elements on the left side.
final state = [4,4,3]
2 transfered from 7 to both 2 to make the final count as 4.
The minimum amount of transfers done 1 unit at a time is half the total amount by which the input differs from the desired array. "Almost equal" doesn't seem to mean any complication according to what you've given.
The solution is to imagine what the target array will be. This target array will depend only on the sum of the values in the original array, and the length of the array (which obviously must remain the same).
If the sum of the values is a multiple of the array length, then in the target array all values will be the same. If however there is a remainder, that remainder represents the number of array values that will be one more than some of the value(s) at the end of the array.
We don't actually have to store that target array. It is implicitly defined by the quotient and the remainder of the division of the sum by the array length.
The output of the function is the sum of differences with the actual input array value and the expected value at any array index. We should only count positive differences (i.e. transfers out of a value) as otherwise we would count transfers twice -- once on the outgoing side and again on the incoming side.
Here is an implementation in basic JavaScript:
function solve(arr) {
// Sum all array values
let sum = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
sum += arr[i];
}
// Get the integer quotient and remainder
let quotient = Math.floor(sum / arr.length);
let remainder = sum % arr.length;
// Determine the target value until the remainder is completely consumed:
let expected = quotient + 1;
// Collect all the positive differences with the expected value
let result = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
// If we have consumed the remainder, reduce the expected value
if (i == remainder) {
expected = quotient;
}
let transfer = arr[i] - expected;
// Only account for positive transfers to avoid double counting
if (transfer > 0) {
result += transfer;
}
}
return result;
}
let array = [7,2,2];
console.log(solve(array)); // 6
Let's start form target array. What is it?
Having {7, 2, 2} we want to obtain {4, 4, 3}. So every item is at least 3 and some top items are 3 + 1 == 4.
The algorithm is
let sum = sum(original)
let rem = sum(original) % length(original) # here % stands for remainder
target[i] = sum / length(original) + (i < rem ? 1 : 0)
Having original and target
original: 7 2 2
target: 4 4 3
transfer: 3 2 1 (6 in total)
note, that
transfer[i] is just an absolute difference: abs(original[i] - target[i])
we count each transfer twice: once we subtract and then we add.
So the answer is
sum(transfer[i]) / 2 == sum(abs(original[i] - target[i])) / 2
Code (c#):
private static int Solve(int[] initial) {
// Don't forget about degenerated cases
if (initial is null || initial.Length <= 0)
return 0;
int sum = initial.Sum();
int rem = sum % initial.Length;
int result = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < initial.Length; ++i)
result += Math.Abs(sum / initial.Length + ((i < rem) ? 1 : 0) - initial[i]);
return result / 2;
}
Demo: (Fiddle)
int[][] tests = new int[][] {
new int[] {7, 2, 2},
new int[] {2, 2, 7},
new int[] {},
new int[] {2, 2, 2},
new int[] {1, 2, 3},
};
string report = string.Join(Environment.NewLine, tests
.Select(test => $"[{string.Join(", ", test)}] => {Solve(test)}"));
Console.Write(report);
Outcome:
[7, 2, 2] => 3
[2, 2, 7] => 4
[] => 0
[2, 2, 2] => 0
[1, 2, 3] => 1
Seems to me like a simple problem that can be solved with greedy approach.
Steps:
Sum up the input array-elements S, divide by its length n. Lets say, the quotient is Q and remainder (mod) is R. Then, final array target will have 1st R elements with value = Q+1. Rest of the elements will be Q.
Number of transfers will be half of the sum of absolute difference at each (corresponding) position in input and target arrays.
Example:
Input [7, 2, 2]
S=11 n=3 Q=11/3=3 R=11%3=2
Target [3+1, 3+1, 3]
Answer = (abs(7-4) + abs(2-4) + abs(2-3)) / 2 = 3
I have n pairs of numbers: ( p[1], s[1] ), ( p[2], s[2] ), ... , ( p[n], s[n] )
Where p[i] is integer greater than 1; s[i] is integer : 0 <= s[i] < p[i]
Is there any way to determine minimum positive integer a , such that for each pair :
( s[i] + a ) mod p[i] != 0
Anything better than brute force ?
It is possible to do better than brute force. Brute force would be O(A·n), where A is the minimum valid value for a that we are looking for.
The approach described below uses a min-heap and achieves O(n·log(n) + A·log(n)) time complexity.
First, notice that replacing a with a value of the form (p[i] - s[i]) + k * p[i] leads to a reminder equal to zero in the ith pair, for any positive integer k. Thus, the numbers of that form are invalid a values (the solution that we are looking for is different from all of them).
The proposed algorithm is an efficient way to generate the numbers of that form (for all i and k), i.e. the invalid values for a, in increasing order. As soon as the current value differs from the previous one by more than 1, it means that there was a valid a in-between.
The pseudocode below details this approach.
1. construct a min-heap from all the following pairs (p[i] - s[i], p[i]),
where the heap comparator is based on the first element of the pairs.
2. a0 = -1; maxA = lcm(p[i])
3. Repeat
3a. Retrieve and remove the root of the heap, (a, p[i]).
3b. If a - a0 > 1 then the result is a0 + 1. Exit.
3c. if a is at least maxA, then no solution exists. Exit.
3d. Insert into the heap the value (a + p[i], p[i]).
3e. a0 = a
Remark: it is possible for such an a to not exist. If a valid a is not found below LCM(p[1], p[2], ... p[n]), then it is guaranteed that no valid a exists.
I'll show below an example of how this algorithm works.
Consider the following (p, s) pairs: { (2, 1), (5, 3) }.
The first pair indicates that a should avoid values like 1, 3, 5, 7, ..., whereas the second pair indicates that we should avoid values like 2, 7, 12, 17, ... .
The min-heap initially contains the first element of each sequence (step 1 of the pseudocode) -- shown in bold below:
1, 3, 5, 7, ...
2, 7, 12, 17, ...
We retrieve and remove the head of the heap, i.e., the minimum value among the two bold ones, and this is 1. We add into the heap the next element from that sequence, thus the heap now contains the elements 2 and 3:
1, 3, 5, 7, ...
2, 7, 12, 17, ...
We again retrieve the head of the heap, this time it contains the value 2, and add the next element of that sequence into the heap:
1, 3, 5, 7, ...
2, 7, 12, 17, ...
The algorithm continues, we will next retrieve value 3, and add 5 into the heap:
1, 3, 5, 7, ...
2, 7, 12, 17, ...
Finally, now we retrieve value 5. At this point we realize that the value 4 is not among the invalid values for a, thus that is the solution that we are looking for.
I can think of two different solutions. First:
p_max = lcm (p[0],p[1],...,p[n]) - 1;
for a = 0 to p_max:
zero_found = false;
for i = 0 to n:
if ( s[i] + a ) mod p[i] == 0:
zero_found = true;
break;
if !zero_found:
return a;
return -1;
I suppose this is the one you call "brute force". Notice that p_max represents Least Common Multiple of p[i]s - 1 (solution is either in the closed interval [0, p_max], or it does not exist). Complexity of this solution is O(n * p_max) in the worst case (plus the running time for calculating lcm!). There is a better solution regarding the time complexity, but it uses an additional binary array - classical time-space tradeoff. Its idea is similar to the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but for remainders instead of primes :)
p_max = lcm (p[0],p[1],...,p[n]) - 1;
int remainders[p_max + 1] = {0};
for i = 0 to n:
int rem = s[i] - p[i];
while rem >= -p_max:
remainders[-rem] = 1;
rem -= p[i];
for i = 0 to n:
if !remainders[i]:
return i;
return -1;
Explanation of the algorithm: first, we create an array remainders that will indicate whether certain negative remainder exists in the whole set. What is a negative remainder? It's simple, notice that 6 = 2 mod 4 is equivalent to 6 = -2 mod 4. If remainders[i] == 1, it means that if we add i to one of the s[j], we will get p[j] (which is 0, and that is what we want to avoid). Array is populated with all possible negative remainders, up to -p_max. Now all we have to do is search for the first i, such that remainder[i] == 0 and return it, if it exists - notice that the solution does not have to exists. In the problem text, you have indicated that you are searching for the minimum positive integer, I don't see why zero would not fit (if all s[i] are positive). However, if that is a strong requirement, just change the for loop to start from 1 instead of 0, and increment p_max.
The complexity of this algorithm is n + sum (p_max / p[i]) = n + p_max * sum (1 / p[i]), where i goes from to 0 to n. Since all p[i]s are at least 2, that is asymptotically better than the brute force solution.
An example for better understanding: suppose that the input is (5,4), (5,1), (2,0). p_max is lcm(5,5,2) - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9, so we create array with 10 elements, initially filled with zeros. Now let's proceed pair by pair:
from the first pair, we have remainders[1] = 1 and remainders[6] = 1
second pair gives remainders[4] = 1 and remainders[9] = 1
last pair gives remainders[0] = 1, remainders[2] = 1, remainders[4] = 1, remainders[6] = 1 and remainders[8] = 1.
Therefore, first index with zero value in the array is 3, which is a desired solution.
I'm looking for solution to my problem. Say I have a number X, now I want to generate 20 random numbers whose sum would equal to X, but I want those random numbers to have enthropy in them. So for example, if X = 50, the algorithm should generate
3
11
0
6
19
7
etc. The sum of given numbres should equal to 50.
Is there any simple way to do that?
Thanks
Simple way:
Generate random number between 1 and X : say R1;
subtract R1 from X, now generate a random number between 1 and (X - R1) : say R2. Repeat the process until all Ri add to X : i.e. (X-Rn) is zero. Note: each consecutive number Ri will be smaller then the first. If you want the final sequence to look more random, simply permute the resulting Ri numbers. I.e. if you generate for X=50, an array like: 22,11,9,5,2,1 - permute it to get something like 9,22,2,11,1,5. You can also put a limit to how large any random number can be.
One fairly straightforward way to get k random values that sum to N is to create an array of size k+1, add values 0 and N, and fill the rest of the array with k-1 randomly generated values between 1 and N-1. Then sort the array and take the differences between successive pairs.
Here's an implementation in Ruby:
def sum_k_values_to_n(k = 20, n = 50)
a = Array.new(k + 1) { 1 + rand(n - 1) }
a[0] = 0
a[-1] = n
a.sort!
(1..(a.length - 1)).collect { |i| a[i] - a[i-1] }
end
p sum_k_values_to_n(3, 10) # produces, e.g., [2, 3, 5]
p sum_k_values_to_n # produces, e.g., [5, 2, 3, 1, 6, 0, 4, 4, 5, 0, 2, 1, 0, 5, 7, 2, 1, 1, 0, 1]
Say you have a vertical game board of length n (being the number of spaces). And you have a three-sided die that has the options: go forward one, stay and go back one. If you go below or above the number of board game spaces it is an invalid game. The only valid move once you reach the end of the board is "stay". Given an exact number of die rolls t, is it possible to algorithmically work out the number of unique dice rolls that result in a winning game?
So far I've tried producing a list of every possible combination of (-1,0,1) for the given number of die rolls and sorting through the list to see if any add up to the length of the board and also meet all the requirements for being a valid game. But this is impractical for dice rolls above 20.
For example:
t=1, n=2; Output=1
t=3, n=2; Output=3
You can use a dynamic programming approach. The sketch of a recurrence is:
M(0, 1) = 1
M(t, n) = T(t-1, n-1) + T(t-1, n) + T(t-1, n+1)
Of course you have to consider the border cases (like going off the board or not allowing to exit the end of the board, but it's easy to code that).
Here's some Python code:
def solve(N, T):
M, M2 = [0]*N, [0]*N
M[0] = 1
for i in xrange(T):
M, M2 = M2, M
for j in xrange(N):
M[j] = (j>0 and M2[j-1]) + M2[j] + (j+1<N-1 and M2[j+1])
return M[N-1]
print solve(3, 2) #1
print solve(2, 1) #1
print solve(2, 3) #3
print solve(5, 20) #19535230
Bonus: fancy "one-liner" with list compreehension and reduce
def solve(N, T):
return reduce(
lambda M, _: [(j>0 and M[j-1]) + M[j] + (j<N-2 and M[j+1]) for j in xrange(N)],
xrange(T), [1]+[0]*N)[-1]
Let M[i, j] be an N by N matrix with M[i, j] = 1 if |i-j| <= 1 and 0 otherwise (and the special case for the "stay" rule of M[N, N-1] = 0)
This matrix counts paths of length 1 from position i to position j.
To find paths of length t, simply raise M to the t'th power. This can be performed efficiently by linear algebra packages.
The solution can be read off: M^t[1, N].
For example, computing paths of length 20 on a board of size 5 in an interactive Python session:
>>> import numpy
>>> M = numpy.matrix('1 1 0 0 0;1 1 1 0 0; 0 1 1 1 0; 0 0 1 1 1; 0 0 0 0 1')
>>> M
matrix([[1, 1, 0, 0, 0],
[1, 1, 1, 0, 0],
[0, 1, 1, 1, 0],
[0, 0, 1, 1, 1],
[0, 0, 0, 0, 1]])
>>> M ** 20
matrix([[31628466, 51170460, 51163695, 31617520, 19535230],
[51170460, 82792161, 82787980, 51163695, 31617520],
[51163695, 82787980, 82792161, 51170460, 31628465],
[31617520, 51163695, 51170460, 31628466, 19552940],
[ 0, 0, 0, 0, 1]])
So there's M^20[1, 5], or 19535230 paths of length 20 from start to finish on a board of size 5.
Try a backtracking algorithm. Recursively "dive down" into depth t and only continue with dice values that could still result in a valid state. Propably by passing a "remaining budget" around.
For example, n=10, t=20, when you reached depth 10 of 20 and your budget is still 10 (= steps forward and backwards seemed to cancelled), the next recursion steps until depth t would discontinue the 0 and -1 possibilities, because they could not result in a valid state at the end.
A backtracking algorithms for this case is still very heavy (exponential), but better than first blowing up a bubble with all possibilities and then filtering.
Since zeros can be added anywhere, we'll multiply those possibilities by the different arrangements of (-1)'s:
X (space 1) X (space 2) X (space 3) X (space 4) X
(-1)'s can only appear in spaces 1,2 or 3, not in space 4. I got help with the mathematical recurrence that counts the number of ways to place minus ones without skipping backwards.
JavaScript code:
function C(n,k){if(k==0||n==k)return 1;var p=n;for(var i=2;i<=k;i++)p*=(n+1-i)/i;return p}
function sumCoefficients(arr,cs){
var s = 0, i = -1;
while (arr[++i]){
s += cs[i] * arr[i];
}
return s;
}
function f(n,t){
var numMinusOnes = (t - (n-1)) >> 1
result = C(t,n-1),
numPlaces = n - 2,
cs = [];
for (var i=1; numPlaces-i>=i-1; i++){
cs.push(-Math.pow(-1,i) * C(numPlaces + 1 - i,i));
}
var As = new Array(cs.length),
An;
As[0] = 1;
for (var m=1; m<=numMinusOnes; m++){
var zeros = t - (n-1) - 2*m;
An = sumCoefficients(As,cs);
As.unshift(An);
As.pop();
result += An * C(zeros + 2*m + n-1,zeros);
}
return result;
}
Output:
console.log(f(5,20))
19535230
I have an array of non-negative values. I want to build an array of values who's sum is 20 so that they are proportional to the first array.
This would be an easy problem, except that I want the proportional array to sum to exactly
20, compensating for any rounding error.
For example, the array
input = [400, 400, 0, 0, 100, 50, 50]
would yield
output = [8, 8, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1]
sum(output) = 20
However, most cases are going to have a lot of rounding errors, like
input = [3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18]
naively yields
output = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 10]
sum(output) = 16 (ouch)
Is there a good way to apportion the output array so that it adds up to 20 every time?
There's a very simple answer to this question: I've done it many times. After each assignment into the new array, you reduce the values you're working with as follows:
Call the first array A, and the new, proportional array B (which starts out empty).
Call the sum of A elements T
Call the desired sum S.
For each element of the array (i) do the following:
a. B[i] = round(A[i] / T * S). (rounding to nearest integer, penny or whatever is required)
b. T = T - A[i]
c. S = S - B[i]
That's it! Easy to implement in any programming language or in a spreadsheet.
The solution is optimal in that the resulting array's elements will never be more than 1 away from their ideal, non-rounded values. Let's demonstrate with your example:
T = 36, S = 20. B[1] = round(A[1] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 33, S = 18. B[2] = round(A[2] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 30, S = 16. B[3] = round(A[3] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 27, S = 14. B[4] = round(A[4] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 24, S = 12. B[5] = round(A[5] / T * S) = 2. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 21, S = 10. B[6] = round(A[6] / T * S) = 1. (ideally, 1.666....)
T = 18, S = 9. B[7] = round(A[7] / T * S) = 9. (ideally, 10)
Notice that comparing every value in B with it's ideal value in parentheses, the difference is never more than 1.
It's also interesting to note that rearranging the elements in the array can result in different corresponding values in the resulting array. I've found that arranging the elements in ascending order is best, because it results in the smallest average percentage difference between actual and ideal.
Your problem is similar to a proportional representation where you want to share N seats (in your case 20) among parties proportionnaly to the votes they obtain, in your case [3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18]
There are several methods used in different countries to handle the rounding problem. My code below uses the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota method used in Switzerland, which basically allocates the seats remaining after an integer division by (N+1) to parties which have the highest remainder:
def proportional(nseats,votes):
"""assign n seats proportionaly to votes using Hagenbach-Bischoff quota
:param nseats: int number of seats to assign
:param votes: iterable of int or float weighting each party
:result: list of ints seats allocated to each party
"""
quota=sum(votes)/(1.+nseats) #force float
frac=[vote/quota for vote in votes]
res=[int(f) for f in frac]
n=nseats-sum(res) #number of seats remaining to allocate
if n==0: return res #done
if n<0: return [min(x,nseats) for x in res] # see siamii's comment
#give the remaining seats to the n parties with the largest remainder
remainders=[ai-bi for ai,bi in zip(frac,res)]
limit=sorted(remainders,reverse=True)[n-1]
#n parties with remainter larger than limit get an extra seat
for i,r in enumerate(remainders):
if r>=limit:
res[i]+=1
n-=1 # attempt to handle perfect equality
if n==0: return res #done
raise #should never happen
However this method doesn't always give the same number of seats to parties with perfect equality as in your case:
proportional(20,[3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 18])
[2,2,2,2,1,1,10]
You have set 3 incompatible requirements. An integer-valued array proportional to [1,1,1] cannot be made to sum to exactly 20. You must choose to break one of the "sum to exactly 20", "proportional to input", and "integer values" requirements.
If you choose to break the requirement for integer values, then use floating point or rational numbers. If you choose to break the exact sum requirement, then you've already solved the problem. Choosing to break proportionality is a little trickier. One approach you might take is to figure out how far off your sum is, and then distribute corrections randomly through the output array. For example, if your input is:
[1, 1, 1]
then you could first make it sum as well as possible while still being proportional:
[7, 7, 7]
and since 20 - (7+7+7) = -1, choose one element to decrement at random:
[7, 6, 7]
If the error was 4, you would choose four elements to increment.
A naïve solution that doesn't perform well, but will provide the right result...
Write an iterator that given an array with eight integers (candidate) and the input array, output the index of the element that is farthest away from being proportional to the others (pseudocode):
function next_index(candidate, input)
// Calculate weights
for i in 1 .. 8
w[i] = candidate[i] / input[i]
end for
// find the smallest weight
min = 0
min_index = 0
for i in 1 .. 8
if w[i] < min then
min = w[i]
min_index = i
end if
end for
return min_index
end function
Then just do this
result = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
result[next_index(result, input)]++ for 1 .. 20
If there is no optimal solution, it'll skew towards the beginning of the array.
Using the approach above, you can reduce the number of iterations by rounding down (as you did in your example) and then just use the approach above to add what has been left out due to rounding errors:
result = <<approach using rounding down>>
while sum(result) < 20
result[next_index(result, input)]++
So the answers and comments above were helpful... particularly the decreasing sum comment from #Frederik.
The solution I came up with takes advantage of the fact that for an input array v, sum(v_i * 20) is divisible by sum(v). So for each value in v, I mulitply by 20 and divide by the sum. I keep the quotient, and accumulate the remainder. Whenever the accumulator is greater than sum(v), I add one to the value. That way I'm guaranteed that all the remainders get rolled into the results.
Is that legible? Here's the implementation in Python:
def proportion(values, total):
# set up by getting the sum of the values and starting
# with an empty result list and accumulator
sum_values = sum(values)
new_values = []
acc = 0
for v in values:
# for each value, find quotient and remainder
q, r = divmod(v * total, sum_values)
if acc + r < sum_values:
# if the accumlator plus remainder is too small, just add and move on
acc += r
else:
# we've accumulated enough to go over sum(values), so add 1 to result
if acc > r:
# add to previous
new_values[-1] += 1
else:
# add to current
q += 1
acc -= sum_values - r
# save the new value
new_values.append(q)
# accumulator is guaranteed to be zero at the end
print new_values, sum_values, acc
return new_values
(I added an enhancement that if the accumulator > remainder, I increment the previous value instead of the current value)