Zeroes in interval

Your task is to write a function or program that takes two non-negative integers i and k (ik), and figure out how many zeroes you'd write if you wrote all whole numbers from i to k (inclusive) in your base of choice on a piece of paper. Output this integer, the number of zeroes, to stdout or similar.

-30% if you also accept a third argument b, the integer base to write down the numbers in. At least two bases must be handled to achieve this bonus.

• You may accept the input in any base you like, and you may change the base between test cases.
• You may accept the arguments i, k and optionally b in any order you like.
• Answers must handle at least one base that is not unary.

Test cases (in base 10):

i k -> output
10 10 -> 1
0 27 -> 3
100 200 -> 22
0 500 -> 92

This is code-golf; fewest bytes win.

-
If you can go with whatever base you'd like from case to case, couldn't you do each in base k and print 0 or 1, depending on whether i = 0? – StephenTG Jan 29 at 20:23
You might want to exclude unary as a base, or else this problem is trivial: get inputs, print 0. – Mego Jan 29 at 20:29
Can you add some test cases for other bases? – Morgan Thrapp Jan 29 at 20:34
I think this would be more interesting if the base argument were required. "Base of your choice" is weird to me. – Alex A. Jan 29 at 20:34
Yes, @AlexA. but too late to change that now, 10 answers in. – Filip Haglund Jan 29 at 20:53

Jelly, 1 byte

¬

This uses base k+2, in which case there's a single 0 iff i is 0. It takes two arguments, but applies the logical NOT to only the first one.

If we don't want to cheat:

7 bytes - 30% = 4.9

-1.1 points by @Dennis

rb⁵\$¬SS

This gets the bonus.

r            inclusive range
b⁵\$           Convert all to base input.
¬          Vectorized logical NOT
S         Sum up 0th digits, 1st digits, etc.
S        Sum all values
-
This is the second Jelly program I've written on my phone. – lirtosiast Jan 29 at 20:44
Damn, 1 byte? Give us a chance. – Eᴀsᴛᴇʀʟʏ Iʀᴋ Jan 29 at 21:09
This can be easily done in very few bytes in any other language. I say stick to the non-cheating version. – ETHproductions Jan 29 at 21:13
@ETHproductions The rules of the question explicitly allow doing this. Cheaty or not, it's the answer the rules call for. – Dennis Jan 29 at 21:17

ES6, 91 86 - 30% = 60.2 bytes

(i,k,b=10)=>([...Array(k+1-i)].map((_,n)=>(i+n).toString(b))+'0').match(/0/g).length-1

Or save 3 (2.1) bytes if b doesn't need to default to 10.

Best non-bonus version I could do was 65 bytes:

(i,k)=>([...Array(k+1).keys()].slice(i)+'0').match(/0/g).length-1

Edit: Saved 5 bytes by using @edc65's zero-counting trick.

-
As I don't manage to get votes for my answer, I'll upvote yours (at least there my name inside) – edc65 Jan 30 at 21:11

Python, 36 bytes

lambda a,b:`range(a,b+1)`.count('0')

Credit to muddyfish for the `` trick.

-
Welcome to Programming Puzzles & Code Golf! This is a nice first answer. :) – Alex A. Jan 30 at 3:58
Wow! I didn't know it's working! – Dantal Jan 31 at 2:23

05AB1E, 3 1 byte

Uses base k+2 like the Jelly answer, Code:

_

Explanation:

_  # Logical NOT operator

3 byte non-cheating version:

Code:

Ÿ0¢

Explanation:

Ÿ    # Inclusive range
0¢  # Count zeroes

The bonus gives me 3.5 bytes due to a bug:

ŸB)0¢

Explanation:

Ÿ      # Inclusive range
B     # Convert to base input
)    # Wrap into an array (which should not be needed)
0¢  # Count zeroes

Uses CP-1252 encoding.

-
How does this work? – lirtosiast Jan 29 at 21:17

Seriously, 10 bytes

'0,,u@xεjc

Explanation:

'0,,u@xεjc
'0,,u       push "0", i, k+1
@x     swap i and k+1, range(i, k+1)
εjc  join on empty string and count 0s

Try it online!

With bonus: 11.9 bytes

'0,,u@x,╗`╜@¡`Mεjc

Try it online!

Explanation:

'0,,u@x,╗`╜@¡`MΣc
'0,,u@x             push "0", range(i, k+1)
,╗           push b to register 0
`   `M     map:
╜@¡         push b, push string of a written in base b
Σc   sum (concat for strings), count 0s
-

Japt, 3 bytes

+!U

Uses base k+2, as the Jelly answer. There is a zero iff i==0. Test it online!

Better version, 10 8 bytes

UòV ¬è'0

This one uses base 10. Test it online!

Bonus version, 14 12 bytes - 30% = 8.4

UòV msW ¬è'0

Sadly, with the golfing I did, the bonus is no longer worth it... Test it online!

How it works

UòV msW ¬è'0   // Implicit: U = start int, V = end int, W = base
UòV            // Create the inclusive range [U..V].
msW        // Map each item by turning it into a base-W string.
¬      // Join into a string.
è'0   // Count the number of occurances of the string "0".
-

CJam, 1210 3 bytes

li!

This uses the shortcut @ThomasKwa does.

If this is not allowed, then here is a 10 byte answer.

q~),>s'0e=

Nice and short! Works like @Mego's Seriously answer.

Thanks @Dennis!

Had fun writing my first CJam answer!

Try it here!

-

Julia, 48 bytes - 30% = 33.6

f(i,k,b)=sum(j->sum(c->c<49,[base(b,j)...]),i:k)

This is a function that accepts three integers and returns an integer. One of the arguments specifies the base, so this qualifies for the bonus.

Ungolfed:

function f(i, k, b)
# For each j in the inclusive range i to k, convert j to base
# b as a string, splat the string into a character array, and
# compare each character to the ASCII code 49 (i.e. '1'). The
# condition will only be true if the character is '0'. We sum
# these booleans to get the number of zeros in that number,
# then we sum over the set of sums to get the result.
sum(j -> sum(c -> c < 49, [base(b, j)...]), i:k)
end

Implementing the bonus yields a score just barely better than the not implementing it (34 bytes):

f(i,k)=sum(c->c<49,[join(i:k)...])
-

Pyth, 6.3 bytes, with bonus (9 bytes - 30%)

/sjRQ}EE0

Explanation:

jRQ     - [conv_base(Q, d) for d in V]
}EE  - inclusive_range(eval(input), eval(input))
s        - sum(^, [])
/       0 - ^.count(0)

Try it here

Or 7 bytes without the bonus:

/`}EE\0

Explanation:

}EE   - inclusive_range(eval(input), eval(input))
`      - repr(^)
/    \0 - ^.count("0")

Try it here

Or use a test suite

-
I think getting the bonus is worth it: /sjRQ}EE0 – FryAmTheEggman Jan 29 at 20:48
Ehh, it's the same code with a base conversion, I'm pretty sure you know what you're doing, just the problem of a bonus forcing you to try different stuff and count... :P – FryAmTheEggman Jan 29 at 21:17

Brachylog, 26 bytes

,{,.e?}?:1frcS:0xlI,Sl-I=.

Takes input as a list [i,k].

Explanation

,{    }?:1f                § Unify the output with a list of all inputs which verify the
§ predicate between brackets {...} with output set as the input
§ of the main predicate

,.e?                     § Unify the input with a number between i and k with the ouput
§ being the list [i,k]

rcS             § Reverse the list and concatenate everything into a single
§ number (we reverse it to not lose the leading 0 if i = 0 when
§ we concatenate into a single number). Call this number S.

:0xlI        § Remove all occurences of 0 from S, call I the length of this new
§ number with no zeros

,Sl-I=. § Output the length of S minus I.
-

Jolf, 7 bytes

Replace with \x11. Try it here!

Zl♂sjJ0
sjJ  inclusive range between two numeric inputs
♂      chopped into single-length elements
Zl    0  and count the number of zeroes
implicitly printed
-

Lua 74 bytes

z,c=io.read,""for a=z(),z()do c=c..a end o,b=string.gsub(c,"0","")print(b)

There's gotta be a more effective way to do this...

I thought I was really onto something here:

c,m,z=0,math,io.read for a=z(),1+z()do c=c+((m.floor(a/10))%10==0 and 1 or a%100==0 and 1 or a%10==0 and 1 or 0) end print(c)

But alas... It keeps getting longer and longer as I realize there's more and more zeroes I forgot about...

-

APL, 22 bytes

{+/'0'⍷∊0⍕¨(⍺-1)↓⍳⍵}

This is a monadic function that accepts the range boundaries on the left and right and returns an integer.

Ungolfed:

(⍺-1)↓⍳⍵}  ⍝ Construct the range ⍺..⍵ by dropping the first
⍝ ⍺-1 values in the range 1..⍵
∊0⍕¨           ⍝ Convert each number to a string
{+/'0'⍷               ⍝ Count the occurrences of '0' in the string

Try it here

-

i#k=sum[1|'0'<-show=<<[i..k]]

I'm using base 10.

Usage example: 100 # 200 -> 22

How it works: turn each element in the list from i to k into it's string representation, concatenate into a single string, take a 1 for every char '0' and sum those 1s.

-

Seriously, 2 bytes

This might be taking the Jelly answer trick to the limit, but here is a simple 2 byte Seriously answer.

,Y

Try it online!

-

JavaScript (ES6), 54 (77 - 30%)

(i,k,b)=>eval("o='0';for(n=i;n<=k;++n)o+=n.toString(b)").match(/0/g).length-1

No bonus, base k+2 is 10 bytes (i,k)=>+!i

No bonus, unary is 8 bytes (i,k)=>0

TEST

f=(i,k,b)=>eval("o='0';for(n=i;n<=k;++n)o+=n.toString(b)").match(/0/g).length-1

function go() {
var i=I.value.match(/\d+/g)
R.textContent = f(i[0],i[1],i[2])
}

go()
i,k,b:<input id=I value='0,500,10' oninput="go()">
<span id=R></span>

-
If you move the o='0' before the loop your code continues to work even when k<i. – Neil Jan 30 at 19:58
@Neil nice, but the spec says (i ≤ k). Update I tried this but in fact it does not work for k<i – edc65 Jan 30 at 20:32
Well, it worked for me (and I know the spec guarantees that i <= k, but your code crashes when k < i; by comparison my code only crashes when k < i - 1 !) – Neil Jan 30 at 21:02
@Neil uh ok now I get it. It does not give a sensible answer but at least does not crash – edc65 Jan 30 at 21:05

Python 3, 52.

Tried to implement the bonus, but it doesn't seem to be worth it.

lambda a,b:''.join(map(str,range(a,b+1))).count('0')

With test cases:

assert f(10, 10) == 1
assert f(0, 27) == 3
assert f(100, 200) == 22
assert f(0, 500) == 92
-

PowerShell, 565451 48 bytes

param(\$i,\$k)(\$i..\$k-join''-replace'[^0]').length

Takes input, creates a range with \$i..\$k then -joins that together into a string, followed by a regex -replace command that swaps everything not-a-zero with nothing. We encapsulate that with ().length to measure how many zeros remain.

Older, 54 bytes

param(\$i,\$k)([char[]](\$i..\$k-join'')|?{\$_-eq48}).count

Takes input, constructs a range \$i..\$k, -joined together, then casts that range as a char-array. We pipe that into ? (an alias for Where-Object) which selects only those characters that -equal ASCII 48 (i.e., '0'). That will output a collection, which we encapsulate with ().count to output the number of elements thus returned.

Base-handling in PowerShell is limited and doesn't support arbitrary bases, so I'm not going for the bonus.

-

MATL, 7 (10 bytes − 30% bonus)

2\$:i:qYA~z

Try it online!

This works in release 11.0.2, which is earlier than this challenge.

Explanation

2\$:      % implicitly input two numbers and generate inclusive range
i:q      % input base b and generate vector [0,1,...,b-1]
YA       % convert range to base b using symbols 0,1,...,b-1. Gives 2D array
~        % logical negation. Zeros become 1, rest of symbols become 0
z        % number of nonzero elements in array
-

Matlab: 27 bytes

@(q,w)nnz(num2str(q:w)==48)

creates a vector from lower number to larger one, then converts all numbers to string and counts all the '0' symbols.

-

T-SQL, 394 Bytes (No bonus)

I figure 'why not', right?

DECLARE @i INT, @k INT SET @i = 100 SET @k = 200  WITH g AS (SELECT @i AS n UNION ALL SELECT n+1 FROM g WHERE n+1<=@k ) SELECT LEN(n) AS c FROM (SELECT STUFF((SELECT REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(n, 1, ''), 2, ''), 3, ''), 4, ''), 5, ''), 6, ''), 7, ''), 8, ''), 9, ''), ' ', '') FROM g FOR XML PATH ('')) ,1,0,'') n ) a OPTION (maxrecursion 0)

And the friendly one:

-- CG!

DECLARE @i INT, @k INT
SET @i = 100
SET @k = 200

WITH g AS
(
SELECT @i AS n
UNION ALL
SELECT n+1 FROM g WHERE n+1<=@k
)

SELECT LEN(n) AS c FROM
(
SELECT
STUFF((SELECT REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(REPLACE(n, 1, ''), 2, ''), 3, ''), 4, ''), 5, ''), 6, ''), 7, ''), 8, ''), 9, ''), ' ', '')
FROM g FOR XML PATH ('')) ,1,0,'') n
) a

OPTION (maxrecursion 0)
-

Perl 6, 23 bytes

{+(\$^i..\$^k).comb(/0/)}
1. creates a Range ( \$^i..\$^k )
2. joins the values with spaces implicitly ( .comb is a Str method )
3. creates a list of just the zeros ( .comb(/0/) )
4. returns the number of elems in that list ( + )

Usage:

my &zero-count = {…}

for (10,10), (0,27), (100,200), (0,500), (0,100000) {
say zero-count |@_
}
1
3
22
92
38895
-
You know, that comment at the end of your code makes it seem longer... – ETHproductions Jan 31 at 22:35
@ETHproductions I usually do that so that if I come up with more than one way to do things that I can see if it is shorter than others. I just keep adding more ways to do it until I come up with what I think is the shortest way. – Brad Gilbert b2gills Jan 31 at 22:38

Mathematica, 39 bytes, 27.3 with bonus

Count[#~Range~#2~IntegerDigits~#3,0,2]&
-