Related
I found this question online and I really have no idea what the question is even asking. I would really appreciate some help in first understanding the question, and a solution if possible. Thanks!
To see if a number is divisible by 3, you need to add up the digits of its decimal notation, and check if the sum is divisible by 3.
To see if a number is divisible by 11, you need to split its decimal notation into pairs of digits (starting from the right end), add up corresponding numbers and check if the sum is divisible by 11.
For any prime p (except for 2 and 5) there exists an integer r such that a similar divisibility test exists: to check if a number is divisible by p, you need to split its decimal notation into r-tuples of digits (starting from the right end), add up these r-tuples and check whether their sum is divisible by p.
Given a prime int p, find the minimal r for which such divisibility test is valid and output it.
The input consists of a single integer p - a prime between 3 and 999983, inclusive, not equal to 5.
Example
input
3
output
1
input
11
output
2
This is a very cool problem! It uses modular arithmetic and some basic number theory to devise the solution.
Let's say we have p = 11. What divisibility rule applies here? How many digits at once do we need to take, to have a divisibility rule?
Well, let's try a single digit at a time. That would mean, that if we have 121 and we sum its digits 1 + 2 + 1, then we get 4. However we see, that although 121 is divisible by 11, 4 isn't and so the rule doesn't work.
What if we take two digits at a time? With 121 we get 1 + 21 = 22. We see that 22 IS divisible by 11, so the rule might work here. And in fact, it does. For p = 11, we have r = 2.
This requires a bit of intuition which I am unable to convey in text (I really have tried) but it can be proven that for a given prime p other than 2 and 5, the divisibility rule works for tuples of digits of length r if and only if the number 99...9 (with r nines) is divisible by p. And indeed, for p = 3 we have 9 % 3 = 0, while for p = 11 we have 9 % 11 = 9 (this is bad) and 99 % 11 = 0 (this is what we want).
If we want to find such an r, we start with r = 1. We check if 9 is divisible by p. If it is, then we found the r. Otherwise, we go further and we check if 99 is divisible by p. If it is, then we return r = 2. Then, we check if 999 is divisible by p and if so, return r = 3 and so on. However, the 99...9 numbers can get very large. Thankfully, to check divisibility by p we only need to store the remainder modulo p, which we know is small (at least smaller than 999983). So the code in C++ would look something like this:
int r(int p) {
int result = 1;
int remainder = 9 % p;
while (remainder != 0) {
remainder = (remainder * 10 + 9) % p;
result++;
}
return result;
}
I have no idea how they expect a random programmer with no background to figure out the answer from this.
But here is the brief introduction to modulo arithmetic that should make this doable.
In programming, n % k is the modulo operator. It refers to taking the remainder of n / k. It satisfies the following two important properties:
(n + m) % k = ((n % k) + (m % k)) % k
(n * m) % k = ((n % k) * (m % k)) % k
Because of this, for any k we can think of all numbers with the same remainder as somehow being the same. The result is something called "the integers modulo k". And it satisfies most of the rules of algebra that you're used to. You have the associative property, the commutative property, distributive law, addition by 0, and multiplication by 1.
However if k is a composite number like 10, you have the unfortunate fact that 2 * 5 = 10 which means that modulo 10, 2 * 5 = 0. That's kind of a problem for division.
BUT if k = p, a prime, then things become massively easier. If (a*m) % p = (b*m) % p then ((a-b) * m) % p = 0 so (a-b) * m is divisible by p. And therefore either (a-b) or m is divisible by p.
For any non-zero remainder m, let's look at the sequence m % p, m^2 % p, m^3 % p, .... This sequence is infinitely long and can only take on p values. So we must have a repeat where, a < b and m^a % p = m^b %p. So (1 * m^a) % p = (m^(b-a) * m^a) % p. Since m doesn't divide p, m^a doesn't either, and therefore m^(b-a) % p = 1. Furthermore m^(b-a-1) % p acts just like m^(-1) = 1/m. (If you take enough math, you'll find that the non-zero remainders under multiplication is a finite group, and all the remainders forms a field. But let's ignore that.)
(I'm going to drop the % p everywhere. Just assume it is there in any calculation.)
Now let's let a be the smallest positive number such that m^a = 1. Then 1, m, m^2, ..., m^(a-1) forms a cycle of length a. For any n in 1, ..., p-1 we can form a cycle (possibly the same, possibly different) n, n*m, n*m^2, ..., n*m^(a-1). It can be shown that these cycles partition 1, 2, ..., p-1 where every number is in a cycle, and each cycle has length a. THEREFORE, a divides p-1. As a side note, since a divides p-1, we easily get Fermat's little theorem that m^(p-1) has remainder 1 and therefore m^p = m.
OK, enough theory. Now to your problem. Suppose we have a base b = 10^i. The primality test that they are discussing is that a_0 + a_1 * b + a_2 * b^2 + a_k * b^k is divisible by a prime p if and only if a_0 + a_1 + ... + a_k is divisible by p. Looking at (p-1) + b, this can only happen if b % p is 1. And if b % p is 1, then in modulo arithmetic b to any power is 1, and the test works.
So we're looking for the smallest i such that 10^i % p is 1. From what I showed above, i always exists, and divides p-1. So you just need to factor p-1, and try 10 to each power until you find the smallest i that works.
Note that you should % p at every step you can to keep those powers from getting too big. And with repeated squaring you can speed up the calculation. So, for example, calculating 10^20 % p could be done by calculating each of the following in turn.
10 % p
10^2 % p
10^4 % p
10^5 % p
10^10 % p
10^20 % p
This is an almost direct application of Fermat's little theorem.
First, you have to reformulate the "split decimal notation into tuples [...]"-condition into something you can work with:
to check if a number is divisible by p, you need to split its decimal notation into r-tuples of digits (starting from the right end), add up these r-tuples and check whether their sum is divisible by p
When you translate it from prose into a formula, what it essentially says is that you want
for any choice of "r-tuples of digits" b_i from { 0, ..., 10^r - 1 } (with only finitely many b_i being non-zero).
Taking b_1 = 1 and all other b_i = 0, it's easy to see that it is necessary that
It's even easier to see that this is also sufficient (all 10^ri on the left hand side simply transform into factor 1 that does nothing).
Now, if p is neither 2 nor 5, then 10 will not be divisible by p, so that Fermat's little theorem guarantees us that
, that is, at least the solution r = p - 1 exists. This might not be the smallest such r though, and computing the smallest one is hard if you don't have a quantum computer handy.
Despite it being hard in general, for very small p, you can simply use an algorithm that is linear in p (you simply look at the sequence
10 mod p
100 mod p
1000 mod p
10000 mod p
...
and stop as soon as you find something that equals 1 mod p).
Written out as code, for example, in Scala:
def blockSize(p: Int, n: Int = 10, r: Int = 1): Int =
if n % p == 1 then r else blockSize(p, n * 10 % p, r + 1)
println(blockSize(3)) // 1
println(blockSize(11)) // 2
println(blockSize(19)) // 18
or in Python:
def blockSize(p: int, n: int = 10, r: int = 1) -> int:
return r if n % p == 1 else blockSize(p, n * 10 % p, r + 1)
print(blockSize(3)) # 1
print(blockSize(11)) # 2
print(blockSize(19)) # 18
A wall of numbers, just in case someone else wants to sanity-check alternative approaches:
11 -> 2
13 -> 6
17 -> 16
19 -> 18
23 -> 22
29 -> 28
31 -> 15
37 -> 3
41 -> 5
43 -> 21
47 -> 46
53 -> 13
59 -> 58
61 -> 60
67 -> 33
71 -> 35
73 -> 8
79 -> 13
83 -> 41
89 -> 44
97 -> 96
101 -> 4
103 -> 34
107 -> 53
109 -> 108
113 -> 112
127 -> 42
131 -> 130
137 -> 8
139 -> 46
149 -> 148
151 -> 75
157 -> 78
163 -> 81
167 -> 166
173 -> 43
179 -> 178
181 -> 180
191 -> 95
193 -> 192
197 -> 98
199 -> 99
Thank you andrey tyukin.
Simple terms to remember:
When x%y =z then (x%y)%y again =z
(X+y)%z == (x%z + y%z)%z
keep this in mind.
So you break any number into some r digits at a time together. I.e. break 3456733 when r=6 into 3 * 10 power(6 * 1) + 446733 * 10 power(6 * 0).
And you can break 12536382626373 into 12 * 10 power (6 * 2). + 536382 * 10 power (6 * 1) + 626373 * 10 power (6 * 0)
Observe that here r is 6.
So when we say we combine the r digits and sum them together and apply modulo. We are saying we apply modulo to coefficients of above breakdown.
So how come coefficients sum represents whole number’s sum?
When the “10 power (6* anything)” modulo in the above break down becomes 1 then that particular term’s modulo will be equal to the coefficient’s modulo. That means the 10 power (r* anything) is of no effect. You can check why it will have no effect by using the formulas 1&2.
And the other similar terms 10 power (r * anything) also will have modulo as 1. I.e. if you can prove that (10 power r)modulo is 1. Then (10 power r * anything) is also 1.
But the important thing is we should have 10 power (r) equal to 1. Then every 10 power (r * anything) is 1 that leads to modulo of number equal to sum of r digits divided modulo.
Conclusion: find r in (10 power r) such that the given prime number will leave 1 as reminder.
That also mean the smallest 9…..9 which is divisible by given prime number decides r.
Given an integer N, how to efficiently find the count of numbers which are divisible by 7 (their reverse should also be divisible by 7) in the range:
[0, 10^N - 1]
Example:
For N=2, answer:
4 {0, 7, 70, 77}
[All numbers from 0 to 99 which are divisible by 7 (also their reverse is divisible)]
My approach, simple brute-force:
initialize count to zero
run a loop from i=0 till end
if a(i) % 7 == 0 && reverse(a(i)) % 7 == 0, then we increase the count
Note:
reverse(123) = 321, reverse(1200) = 21, for example!
Let's see what happens mod 7 when we add a digit, d, to a prefix, abc.
10 * abc + d =>
(10 mod 7 * abc mod 7) mod 7 + d mod 7
reversed number:
abc + d * 10^(length(prefix) =>
abc mod 7 + (d mod 7 * 10^3 mod 7) mod 7
Note is that we only need the count of prefixes of abc mod 7 for each such remainder, not the actual prefixes.
Let COUNTS(n,f,r) be the number of n-digit numbers such that n%7 = f and REVERSE(n)%7 = r
The counts are easy to calculate for n=1:
COUNTS(1,f,r) = 0 when f!=r, since a 1-digit number is the same as its reverse.
COUNTS(1,x,x) = 1 when x >= 3, and
COUNTS(1,x,x) = 2 when x < 3, since 7%3=0, 8%3=1, and 9%3=2
The counts for other lengths can be figured out by calculating what happens when you add each digit from 0 to 9 to the numbers characterized by the previous counts.
At the end, COUNTS(N,0,0) is the answer you are looking for.
In python, for example, it looks like this:
def getModCounts(len):
counts=[[0]*7 for i in range(0,7)]
if len<1:
return counts
if len<2:
counts[0][0] = counts[1][1] = counts[2][2] = 2
counts[3][3] = counts[4][4] = counts[5][5] = counts[6][6] = 1
return counts
prevCounts = getModCounts(len-1)
for f in range(0,7):
for r in range(0,7):
c = prevCounts[f][r]
rplace=(10**(len-1))%7
for newdigit in range(0,10):
newf=(f*10 + newdigit)%7
newr=(r + newdigit*rplace)%7
counts[newf][newr]+=c
return counts
def numFwdAndRevDivisible(len):
return getModCounts(len)[0][0]
#TEST
for i in range(0,20):
print("{0} -> {1}".format(i, numFwdAndRevDivisible(i)))
See if it gives the answers you're expecting. If not, maybe there's a bug I need to fix:
0 -> 0
1 -> 2
2 -> 4
3 -> 22
4 -> 206
5 -> 2113
6 -> 20728
7 -> 205438
8 -> 2043640
9 -> 20411101
10 -> 204084732
11 -> 2040990205
12 -> 20408959192
13 -> 204085028987
14 -> 2040823461232
15 -> 20408170697950
16 -> 204081640379568
17 -> 2040816769367351
18 -> 20408165293673530
19 -> 204081641308734748
This is a pretty good answer when counting up to N is reasonable -- way better than brute force, which counts up to 10^N.
For very long lengths like N=10^18 (you would probably be asked for a the count mod 1000000007 or something), there is a next-level answer.
Note that there is a linear relationship between the counts for length n and the counts for length n+1, and that this relationship can be represented by a 49x49 matrix. You can exponentiate this matrix to the Nth power using exponentiation by squaring in O(log N) matrix multiplications, and then just multiply by the single digit counts to get the length N counts.
There is a recursive solution using digit dp technique for any digits.
long long call(int pos , int Mod ,int revMod){
if(pos == len ){
if(!Mod && !revMod)return 1;
return 0;
}
if(dp[pos][Mod][revMod] != -1 )return dp[pos][Mod][revMod] ;
long long res =0;
for(int i= 0; i<= 9; i++ ){
int revValue =(base[pos]*i + revMod)%7;
int curValue = (Mod*10 + i)%7;
res += call(pos+1, curValue,revValue) ;
}
return dp[pos][Mod][revMod] = res ;
}
This question looks relatively simple, but I can't seem to find the running time in terms of n.
Here is the problem:
j = n;
while(j >= 2) {
j = j^(1/2)
}
I don't really need the total running time, I just need to know how to calculate the amount of times the second and third lines are hit (they should be the same). I'd like to know if there is some sort of formula for finding this, as well. I can see that the above is the equivalent of:
for(j = n; n >= 2; j = j^(1/2)
Please note that the type of operation doesn't matter, each time a line is executed, it counts as 1 time unit. So line 1 would just be 1 time unit, line 2 would be:
0 time units if n were 1,
1 time unit if n were 2,
2 time units if n were 4,
3 time units if n were 16, etc.
Thanks in advance to anyone who offers help! It is very much appreciated!
Work backwards to get the number of time units for line 2:
time
n n log_2(n) units
1 1 0 0
2 2 1 1
4 4 2 2
16 16 4 3
16^2 256 8 4
(16^2)^2 65536 16 5
((16^2)^2)^2) ... 32 6
In other words, for the number of time units t, n is 2^(2^(t-1)) except for the case t = 0 in which case n = 1.
To reverse this, you have
t = 0 when n < 2
t = log2(log2(n)) + 1 when n >= 2
where log2(x) is known as the binary logarithm of x.
I was wondering if there is an algorithm that checks wether a given number is factorable into a set of prime numbers and if no give out the nearest number.
The problem comes always up when I use the FFT.
Thanks a lot for your help guys.
In general this looks like a hard problem, particularly finding the next largest integer that factors into your set of primes. However, if your set of primes isn't too big, one approach would be to turn this into an integer optimization problem by taking the logs. Here is how to find the smallest number > n that factors into a set of primes p_1...p_k
choose integers x_1,...,x_k to minimize (x_1 log p_1 + ... + x_k log p_k - log n)
Subject to:
x_1 log p_1 + ... + x_k log p_k >= log n
x_i >= 0 for all i
The x_i will give you the exponents for the primes. Here is an implementation in R using lpSolve:
minfact<-function(x,p){
sol<-lp("min",log(p),t(log(p)),">=",log(x),all.int=T)
prod(p^sol$solution)
}
> p<-c(2,3,13,31)
> x<-124363183
> y<-minfact(x,p)
> y
[1] 124730112
> factorize(y)
Big Integer ('bigz') object of length 13:
[1] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 13 13 31 31
> y-x
[1] 366929
>
Using big integers, this works pretty well even for large numbers:
> p<-c(2,3,13,31,53,79)
> x<-as.bigz("1243631831278461278641361")
> y<-minfact(x,p)
y
>
Big Integer ('bigz') :
[1] 1243634072805560436129792
> factorize(y)
Big Integer ('bigz') object of length 45:
[1] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
[26] 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 13 31 31 31 31 53 53 53
>
Your question is about well-known factorization problem - which could not be resolved with 'fast' (polynomial) time. Lenstra's elliptic algorithm is the most efficient (known) way in common case, but it requires strong knowledge of numbers theory - and it's also sub-exponential (but not polynomial).
Other algorithms are listed in the page by first link in my post, but such things as direct try (brute force) are much more slower, of cause.
Please, note, that under "could not be resolved with polynomial time" - I mean that there's no way to do this now - but not that such way does not exist (at least now, number theory can not provide such solution for this problem)
Here is a brute force method in C++. It returns the factorization of the nearest factorable number. If N has two equidistant factorable neighbours, it returns the smallest one.
GCC 4.7.3: g++ -Wall -Wextra -std=c++0x factorable-neighbour.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using ints = std::vector<int>;
ints factor(int n, const ints& primes) {
ints f(primes.size(), 0);
for (int i = 0; i < primes.size(); ++i) {
while (0< n && !(n % primes[i])) {
n /= primes[i];
++f[i]; } }
// append the "remainder"
f.push_back(n);
return f;
}
ints closest_factorable(int n, const ints& primes) {
int d = 0;
ints r;
while (true) {
r = factor(n + d, primes);
if (r[r.size() - 1] == 1) { break; }
++d;
r = factor(n - d, primes);
if (r[r.size() - 1] == 1) { break; }
}
r.pop_back();
return r; }
int main() {
for (int i = 0; i < 30; ++i) {
for (const auto& f : closest_factorable(i, {2, 3, 5, 7, 11})) {
std::cout << f << " "; }
std::cout << "\n"; }
}
I suppose that you have a (small) set of prime numbers S and an integer n and you want to know is n factors only using number in S. The easiest way seems to be the following:
P <- product of s in S
while P != 1 do
P <- GCD(P, n)
n <- n/P
return n == 1
You compute the GCD using Euclid's algorithm.
The idea is the following: Suppose that S = {p1, p2, ... ,pk}. You can write n uniquely as
n = p1^n1 p2^n2 ... pk^nk * R
where R is coprime wrt the pi. You want to know whether R=1.
Then
GCD(n, P) = prod ( pi such that ni <> 0 ).
Therefore n/p decrease all those non zeros ni by 1 so that they eventually become 0. At the end only R remains.
For example: S = {2,3,5}, n = 5600 = 2^5*5^2*7. Then P = 2*3*5 = 30. One gets GCD(n, p)=10=2*5. And therefore n/GCD(n,p) = 560 = 2^4*5*7.
You are now back to the same problem: You want to know if 560 can be factored using S = {2,5} hence the loop. So the next steps are
GCD(560, 10) = 10. 560/GCD = 56 = 2^3 * 7.
GCD(56, 10) = 2. 56/2 = 28 = 2^2 * 7
GCD(28, 2) = 2. 28/2 = 14 = 2 * 7
GCD(14, 2) = 2. 14/2 = 7
GCD(7, 2) = 1 so that R = 7 ! Your answer if FALSE.
kissfft has a function
int kiss_fft_next_fast_size(int n)
that returns the next largest N that is an aggregate of 2,3,5.
Also related is a kf_factor function that factorizes a number n, pulling out the "nice" FFT primes first (e.g. 4's are pulled out before 2's)
How to find out the units digit of a certain number (e.g. 3 power 2011). What logic should I use to find the answer to this problem?
For base 3:
3^1 = 3
3^2 = 9
3^3 = 27
3^4 = 81
3^5 = 243
3^6 = 729
3^7 = 2187
...
That is the units digit has only 4 possibilities and then it repeats in ever the same cycle.
With the help of Euler's theorem we can show that this holds for any integer n, meaning their units digit will repeat after at most 4 consecutive exponents. Looking only at the units digit of an arbitrary product is equivalent to taking the remainder of the multiplication modulo 10, for example:
2^7 % 10 = 128 % 10 = 8
It can also be shown (and is quite intuitive) that for an arbitrary base, the units digit of any power will only depend on the units digit of the base itself - that is 2013^2013 has the same units digit as 3^2013.
We can exploit both facts to come up with an extremely fast algorithm (thanks for the help - with kind permission I may present a much faster version).
The idea is this: As we know that for any number 0-9 there will be at most 4 different outcomes, we can as well store them in a lookup table:
{ 0,0,0,0, 1,1,1,1, 6,2,4,8, 1,3,9,7, 6,4,6,4,
5,5,5,5, 6,6,6,6, 1,7,9,3, 6,8,4,2, 1,9,1,9 }
That's the possible outcomes for 0-9 in that order, grouped in fours. The idea is now for an exponentiation n^a to
first take the base mod 10 => := i
go to index 4*i in our table (it's the starting offset of that particular digit)
take the exponent mod 4 => := off (as stated by Euler's theorem we only have four possible outcomes!)
add off to 4*i to get the result
Now to make this as efficient as possible, some tweaks are applied to the basic arithmetic operations:
Multiplying by 4 is equivalent to shifting two to the left ('<< 2')
Taking a number a % 4 is equivalent to saying a&3 (masking the 1 and 2 bit, which form the remainder % 4)
The algorithm in C:
static int table[] = {
0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 6, 2, 4, 8, 1, 3, 9, 7, 6, 4, 6, 4,
5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 7, 9, 3, 6, 8, 4, 2, 1, 9, 1, 9
};
int /* assume n>=0, a>0 */
unit_digit(int n, int a)
{
return table[((n%10)<<2)+(a&3)];
}
Proof for the initial claims
From observing we noticed that the units digit for 3^x repeats every fourth power. The claim was that this holds for any integer. But how is this actually proven? As it turns out that it's quite easy using modular arithmetic. If we are only interested in the units digit, we can perform our calculations modulo 10. It's equivalent to say the units digit cycles after 4 exponents or to say
a^4 congruent 1 mod 10
If this holds, then for example
a^5 mod 10 = a^4 * a^1 mod 10 = a^4 mod 10 * a^1 mod 10 = a^1 mod 10
that is, a^5 yields the same units digit as a^1 and so on.
From Euler's theorem we know that
a^phi(10) mod 10 = 1 mod 10
where phi(10) is the numbers between 1 and 10 that are co-prime to 10 (i.e. their gcd is equal to 1). The numbers < 10 co-prime to 10 are 1,3,7 and 9. So phi(10) = 4 and this proves that really a^4 mod 10 = 1 mod 10.
The last claim to prove is that for exponentiations where the base is >= 10 it suffices to just look at the base's units digit. Lets say our base is x >= 10, so we can say that x = x_0 + 10*x_1 + 100*x_2 + ... (base 10 representation)
Using modular representation it's easy to see that indeed
x ^ y mod 10
= (x_0 + 10*x_1 + 100*x_2 + ...) ^ y mod 10
= x_0^y + a_1 * (10*x_1)^y-1 + a_2 * (100*x_2)^y-2 + ... + a_n * (10^n) mod 10
= x_0^y mod 10
where a_i are coefficients that include powers of x_0 but finally not relevant since the whole product a_i * (10 * x_i)^y-i will be divisible by 10.
You should look at Modular exponentiation. What you want is the same of calculating n^e (mod m) with m = 10. That is the same thing as calculating the remainder of the division by ten of n^e.
You are probably interested in the Right-to-left binary method to calculate it, since it's the most time-efficient one and the easiest not too hard to implement. Here is the pseudocode, from Wikipedia:
function modular_pow(base, exponent, modulus)
result := 1
while exponent > 0
if (exponent & 1) equals 1:
result = (result * base) mod modulus
exponent := exponent >> 1
base = (base * base) mod modulus
return result
After that, just call it with modulus = 10 for you desired base and exponent and there's your answer.
EDIT: for an even simpler method, less efficient CPU-wise but more memory-wise, check out the Memory-efficient section of the article on Wikipedia. The logic is straightforward enough:
function modular_pow(base, exponent, modulus)
c := 1
for e_prime = 1 to exponent
c := (c * base) mod modulus
return c
I'm sure there's a proper mathematical way to solve this, but I would suggest that since you only care about the last digit and since in theory every number multiplied by itself repeatedly should generate a repeating pattern eventually (when looking only at the last digit), you could simply perform the multiplications until you detect the first repetition and then map your exponent into the appropriate position in the pattern that you built.
Note that because you only care about the last digit, you can further simplify things by truncating your input number down to its ones-digit before you start building your pattern mapping. This will let you to determine the last digit even for arbitrarily large inputs that would otherwise cause an overflow on the first or second multiplication.
Here's a basic example in JavaScript: http://jsfiddle.net/dtyuA/2/
function lastDigit(base, exponent) {
if (exponent < 0) {
alert("stupid user, negative values are not supported");
return 0;
}
if (exponent == 0) {
return 1;
}
var baseString = base + '';
var lastBaseDigit = baseString.substring(baseString.length - 1);
var lastDigit = lastBaseDigit;
var pattern = [];
do {
pattern.push(lastDigit);
var nextProduct = (lastDigit * lastBaseDigit) + '';
lastDigit = nextProduct.substring(nextProduct.length - 1);
} while (lastDigit != lastBaseDigit);
return pattern[(exponent - 1) % pattern.length];
};
function doMath() {
var base = parseInt(document.getElementById("base").value, 10);
var exp = parseInt(document.getElementById("exp").value, 10);
console.log(lastDigit(base, exp));
};
console.log(lastDigit(3003, 5));
Base: <input id="base" type="text" value="3" /> <br>
Exponent: <input id="exp" type="text" value="2011"><br>
<input type="button" value="Submit" onclick="doMath();" />
And the last digit in 3^2011 is 7, by the way.
We can start by inspecting the last digit of each result obtained by raising the base 10 digits to successive powers:
d d^2 d^3 d^4 d^5 d^6 d^7 d^8 d^9 (mod 10)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 4 8 6 2 4 8 6 2
3 9 7 1 3 9 7 1 3
4 6 4 6 4 6 4 6 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7 9 3 1 7 9 3 1 7
8 4 2 6 8 4 2 6 8
9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9
We can see that in all cases the last digit cycles through no more than four distinct values. Using this fact, and assuming that n is a non-negative integer and p is a positive integer, we can compute the result fairly directly (e.g. in Javascript):
function lastDigit(n, p) {
var d = n % 10;
return [d, (d*d)%10, (d*d*d)%10, (d*d*d*d)%10][(p-1) % 4];
}
... or even more simply:
function lastDigit(n, p) {
return Math.pow(n % 10, (p-1) % 4 + 1) % 10;
}
lastDigit(3, 2011)
/* 7 */
The second function is equivalent to the first. Note that even though it uses exponentiation, it never works with a number larger than nine to the fourth power (6561).
The key to solving this type of question lies in Euler's theorem.
This theorem allows us to say that a^phi(m) mod m = 1 mod m, if and only if a and m are coprime. That is, a and m do not divide evenly. If this is the case, (and for your example it is), we can solve the problem on paper, without any programming what so ever.
Let's solve for the unit digit of 3^2011, as in your example. This is equivalent to 3^2011 mod 10.
The first step is to check is 3 and 10 are co-prime. They do not divide evenly, so we can use Euler's theorem.
We also need to compute what the totient, or phi value, is for 10. For 10, it is 4. For 100 phi is 40, 1000 is 4000, etc.
Using Euler's theorem, we can see that 3^4 mod 10 = 1. We can then re-write the original example as:
3^2011 mod 10 = 3^(4*502 + 3) mod 10 = 3^(4*502) mod 10 + 3^3 mod 10 = 1^502 * 3^3 mod 10 = 27 mod 10 = 7
Thus, the last digit of 3^2011 is 7.
As you saw, this required no programming whatsoever and I solved this example on a piece of scratch paper.
You ppl are making simple thing complicated.
Suppose u want to find out the unit digit of abc ^ xyz .
divide the power xyz by 4,if remainder is 1 ans is c^1=c.
if xyz%4=2 ans is unit digit of c^2.
else if xyz%4=3 ans is unit digit of c^3.
if xyz%4=0
then we need to check whether c is 5,then ans is 5
if c is even ans is 6
if c is odd (other than 5 ) ans is 1.
Bellow is a table with the power and the unit digit of 3 to that power.
0 1
1 3
2 9
3 7
4 1
5 3
6 9
7 7
Using this table you can see that the unit digit can be 1, 3, 9, 7 and the sequence repeats in this order for higher powers of 3. Using this logic you can find that the unit digit of (3 power 2011) is 7. You can use the same algorithm for the general case.
Here's a trick that works for numbers that aren't a multiple of a factor of the base (for base 10, it can't be a multiple of 2 or 5.) Let's use base 3. What you're trying to find is 3^2011 mod 10. Find powers of 3, starting with 3^1, until you find one with the last digit 1. For 3, you get 3^4=81. Write the original power as (3^4)^502*3^3. Using modular arithmetic, (3^4)^502*3^3 is congruent to (has the same last digit as) 1^502*3^3. So 3^2011 and 3^3 have the same last digit, which is 7.
Here's some pseudocode to explain it in general. This finds the last digit of b^n in base B.
// Find the smallest power of b ending in 1.
i=1
while ((b^i % B) != 1) {
i++
}
// b^i has the last digit 1
a=n % i
// For some value of j, b^n == (b^i)^j * b^a, which is congruent to b^a
return b^a % B
You'd need to be careful to prevent an infinite loop, if no power of b ends in 1 (in base 10, multiples of 2 or 5 don't work.)
Find out the repeating set in this case, it is 3,9,7,1 and it repeats in the same order for ever....so divide 2011 by 4 which will give you a reminder 3. That is the 3rd element in the repeating set. This is the easiest way to find for any given no. say if asked for 3^31, then the reminder of 31/4 is 3 and so 7 is the unit digit. for 3^9, 9/4 is 1 and so the unit will be 3. 3^100, the unit will be 1.
If you have the number and exponent separate it's easy.
Let n1 is the number and n2 is the power. And ** represents power.
assume n1>0.
% means modulo division.
pseudo code will look like this
def last_digit(n1, n2)
if n2==0 then return 1 end
last = n1%10
mod = (n2%4).zero? ? 4 : (n2%4)
last_digit = (last**mod)%10
end
Explanation:
We need to consider only the last digit of the number because that determines the last digit of the power.
it's the maths property that count of possibility of each digits(0-9) power's last digit is at most 4.
1) Now if the exponent is zero we know the last digit would be 1.
2) Get the last digit by %10 on the number(n1)
3) %4 on the exponent(n2)- if the output is zero we have to consider that as 4 because n2 can't be zero. if %4 is non zero we have to consider %4 value.
4) now we have at most 9**4. This is easy for the computer to calculate.
take the %10 on that number. You have the last digit.