code:
void prime()
{
int i,N;
scanf("%d",&N);
for(i=2;i<N;i++)
{
if (((i^(N-1))%N )==1);
else{
printf("not prime");
return;
}
}
printf("prime");
return;
}
This program is based on Fermat's Theorem on prime numbers. N is number to be tested as prime. This program is not showing correct result for '11'. Maybe due to some mistake which is not identified by me.
You are running into overflow if this is pseudo-code or
If C code, use of ^ as power operator is not valid.
Working with large integers quickly becomes a problem in C. The are various BigInt libraries available.
Using floating point is challenging with large integer computation. Recommend avoiding double, pow(), etc.
Since the problem is all >= 0, suggest using unsigned integers. Also use the largest integer type available - typically unsigned long long. As overflow is a real possibility, detect it.
unsigned long long upower(unsigned i, unsigned N) {
unsigned long long power = 1;
if (i <= 1) return i;
while (N-- > 0) {
unsigned long long power_before = power;
power *= i;
if (power < power_before) {
printf("Overflow\n");
return 0;
}
}
return power;
}
void prime() {
unsigned i, N;
scanf("%u", &N);
for (i = 2; i < N; i++) {
if ((upower(i, N - 1) % N) != 1) {
printf("not prime");
return;
}
}
printf("prime");
return;
}
In lieu of huge integers, the Chinese remainder theorem may offer an alternative to (upower(i, N - 1) % N) != 1.
If I read your code as pseudo-code, You're overflowing.
10^10 is bigger that 2^31 -1 which is the max value for most int. You could solve this for N=11 by using longs, but that will not get you far, you'll start overflowing at some point as well.
That theorem, at least expressed like this, is very unpractical to use with finite length numbers.
Now, if your code is real C, note that ^ means XOR, not exponentiation. Exponentiation is pow(). Thanks to the commenters for pointing that out.
Modular mathematical rules and principles can be applied here to show that in order to compute
(i ^ (N-1)) % N,
you do not even need to compute i^(N-1) at the first place.
You can easily break down (N-1) into powers of 2.
Let's take an example to make it more clear.
Assume that the subject of our primality test, N = 58.
So,
N - 1 = 57
57 can be easily rewritten as:
57 = 1 + 8 + 16 + 32
or,
57 = 2^0 + 2^3 + 2^4 + 2^5
So, substituting this value for N-1, we need to compute
(i ^ (2^0 + 2^3 + 2^4 + 2^5))% 58
or,
((i^1) × (i^8) × (i^16) × (i^32))% 58
Which, using the Modular Multiplication identities, can be rewritten as:
((i^1)% 58 × (i^8)% 58 × (i^16)% 58 × (i^32)% 58) mod 58 ---(1)
Note that,
(i^1)% 58 = i%58
can be easily computed without worrying of any overflows.
Once again utilising the Modular Multiplication identities, we know that
(i^2)% 58 = ((i^1)% 58 × (i^1)% 58)% 58
Substitute the value of (i^1)% 58 to find (i^2)% 58.
You can continue in this fashion, computing (i^4)% 58 through (i^32)% 58. Once completed, you can finally substitute the values in (1) to finally find the required value, very efficiently avoiding any overflows.
Note that, other modular exponientation techniques exist too. This was just an example to showcase how modular mathematical techniques can be used in implementing Fermat's little primality test.
Cheers!
Sorry to change your code a little. Using the BigInteger class, you can calculate very quickly for much larger numbers. However, you can use this method not to get prime numbers in order, but to test if any numbers are prime.
using System;
using System.Numerics;
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine(2);
for(var i = 3; i < 100000; i+=2)
{
if(BigInteger.ModPow(2, i , i) == 2)
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}
}
https://dotnetfiddle.net/nwDP7h
This code will produce erroneous results when it falls into the following numbers.
https://oeis.org/a001567
https://oeis.org/a006935
To fix these errors, you need to edit the code as follows and make a binary search within these numbers to test whether the number is a pseudo prime.
public static bool IsPrime(ulong number)
{
return number == 2
? true
: (BigInterger.ModPow(2, number, number) == 2
? (number & 1 != 0 && BinarySearchInA001567(number) == false)
: false)
}
public static bool BinarySearchInA001567(ulong number)
{
// Is number in list?
// todo: Binary Search in A001567 (https://oeis.org/A001567) below 2 ^ 64
// Only 2.35 Gigabytes as a text file http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/Pseudoprimes/index-2-to-64.html
}
Related
I have a tricky requirement in project asking to write function which returns a value 1 (0 otherwise) if given an integer representable as 22n+1. Where n is any non-negative integer.
int find_pow_2n_1(int M);
for e.g: return 1, when M=5 since 5 is output when n=1 -> 21*2+1 .
I am trying to evaluate the equation but it results in log function, not able to find any kind of hint while browsing in google as well .
Solution
int find_pow_2n_1(int M)
{
return 1 < M && !(M-1 & M-2) && M % 3;
}
Explanation
First, we discard values less than two, as we know the first matching number is two.
Then M-1 & M-2 tests whether there is more than one bit set in M-1:
M-1 cannot have zero bits set, since M is greater than one, so M-1 is not zero.
If M-1 has one bit set, then that bit is zero in M-2 and all lower bits are set, so M-1 and M-2 have no set bits in common, so M-1 & M-2 is zero.
If M-1 has more than one bit set, then M-2 has the lowest set bit cleared, but higher set bits remain set. So M-1 and M-2 have set bits in common, so M-1 & M-2 is non-zero.
So, if the test !(M-1 & M-2) passes, we know M-1 is a power of two. So M is one more than a power of two.
Our remaining concern is whether that is an even power of two. We can see that when M is an even power of two plus one, its remainder modulo three is two, whereas when M is an odd power of two plus one, its remainder modulo three is zero:
Remainder of 20+1 = 2 modulo 3 is 2.
Remainder of 21+1 = 3 modulo 3 is 0.
Remainder of 22+1 = 5 modulo 3 is 2.
Remainder of 23+1 = 9 modulo 3 is 0.
Remainder of 24+1 = 17 modulo 3 is 2.
Remainder of 25+1 = 33 modulo 3 is 0.
…
Therefore, M % 3, which tests whether the remainder of M modulo three is non-zero, tests whether M-1 is an even power of two.
There are only a few numbers with that property: make a table lookup array :-)
$ bc
for(n=0;n<33;n++)2^(2*n)+1
2
5
17
65
257
1025
4097
16385
65537
262145
1048577
4194305
16777217
67108865
268435457
1073741825
4294967297
17179869185
68719476737
274877906945
1099511627777
4398046511105
17592186044417
70368744177665
281474976710657
1125899906842625
4503599627370497
18014398509481985
72057594037927937
288230376151711745
1152921504606846977
4611686018427387905
18446744073709551617
Last number above is 2^64 + 1, probably will not fit an int in your implementation.
All proposed solutions are way too complicated or bad in performance. Try the simpler one:
static int is_power_of_2(unsigned long n)
{
return (n != 0 && ((n & (n - 1)) == 0));
}
static int is_power_of_2n(unsigned long n)
{
return is_power_of_2(n) && (__builtin_ffsl(n) & 1);
}
int main(void)
{
int x;
for (x = -3; x < 20; x++)
printf("Is %d = 2^2n + 1? %s\n", x, is_power_of_2n(x - 1) ? "Yes" : "no");
return 0;
}
Implementing __builtin_ffsl(), if you are using ancient compiler, I leave it as a homework (it can be done without tables or divisions).
Example: https://wandbox.org/permlink/gMrzZqhuP4onF8ku
While commenting on #Lundin's comment I realized that you may read a very nice set of bit twiddling hacks from Standford University.
UPDATE. As #grenix noticed the initial question was about the direct check, it may be done with the above code by introducing an additional wrapper, so nothing basically changes:
...
static int is_power_of_2n_plus_1(unsigned long n)
{
return is_power_of_2n(n - 1);
}
int main(void)
{
int x;
for (x = -3; x < 20; x++)
printf("Is %d = 2^2n + 1? %s\n", x, is_power_of_2n_plus_1(x) ? "Yes" : "no");
return 0;
}
Here I am leaving you a pseudocode (or a code that I haven't tested) which I think could help you think of the way to handle your problem :)
#include <math.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define EPSILON 0.000001
int find_pow_2n_1(int M) {
M--; // M = pow 2n now
double val = log2(M); // gives us 2n
val /= 2; // now we have n
if((val * 10) / 10 - val) <= EPSILON) return 1; // check whether n is an integer or not
else return 0;
}
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to write a C program to convert a number given a base, to any other base (Eg. base 2 binary number to base 8, or base 3 to base 16 hex). I've researched this quite a bit, and already read through a similar article, The math behind converting from any base to any base without going through base 10?] but in the explanation given, they utilize an array, which I am not allowed to do for this program.
Without writing a lengthy program with a method for each possible combination of base conversion, I don't see how this is possible without an array to store possible values. I do understand that there is a change of base formula with logs that allows me to change between number bases, but I am unclear how I would apply this, as this formula only gives a decimal number answer, which I would still need to convert.
int log_base_n(int n, int logof)
{
double logBaseN = log10((double) logof) / log10((double) n);
return (int) ceil(logBaseN);
}
Here is my binary to decimal conversion which I am trying to use as an intermediate step:
/**
* Convert decimal numbers to binary. Uses a greedy subtraction
* algorithm. Assumes max integer allowed is 2 to 16 power.
*
* #param numberToConvert
*/
void decToBin(int numberToConvert)
{
int power = 16;
double ans = pow(2, power);
if (numberToConvert > ans)
{
printf("ERROR: Number too large to convert!\n");
return;
}
while (ans > numberToConvert)
{
power--;
ans = pow(2, power);
}
printf("%d", 0);
int i = power;
while (i >= 0)
{
ans = pow(2, i);
numberToConvert = numberToConvert - ans;
printf("%d", 1);
i--;
while ((pow(2, i) > numberToConvert) && (i >= 0))
{
printf("%d", 0);
i--;
ans = pow(2, i);
}
}
}
I know Java has a parseInt() method, that does base conversions, but is there something similar I can implement in C without having to write methods for each possible conversion like the one above, while still utilizing a logarithm related idea? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
but is there something similar I can implement in C without having to write methods for each possible conversion like the one above, while still utilizing a logarithm related idea?
Logarithm is a poor choice. The computation of logs in code is not exactly the same as their mathematical counterpart and leads to incorrect output.
The below is a problem should the quotient result in a value just a little higher than a whole number expected value. Of course, log10() is a problem for logof <= 0.
double logBaseN = log10((double) logof) / log10((double) n);
return (int) ceil(logBaseN);
Further, the calculation of log_base_n() is quite unnecessary.
This is an integer problem. Use integer math.
A simply non-array solution "to convert from any base to another base"1 is to use recursion.
void print_int_base(int numberToConvert, int base) {
// For now, assume numberToConvert >= 0, 2 <= base <= 36
if (numberToConvert >= base) {
print_int_base(numberToConvert/base, base);
}
int digit = numberToConvert%base;
int c = digit < 10 ? digit + '0' : digit + 'A';
putchar(c);
}
Test code
#include <stdio.h>
void print_int_base_test(int numberToConvert, int base) {
printf("%10d %2d:", numberToConvert, base);
print_int_base(numberToConvert, base);
puts("");
}
int main() {
int numberToConvert = 42;
for (int base=2; base<=20; base++) {
print_int_base_test(numberToConvert, base);
}
}
Output
42 2:101010
42 3:1120
42 4:222
42 5:132
42 6:110
42 7:60
42 8:52
42 9:46
42 10:42
42 11:39
42 12:36
42 13:33
42 14:30
42 15:2M
42 16:2K
42 17:28
42 18:26
42 19:24
42 20:22
1 OP's idea of conversion apparently is to print the int in various bases.
I am trying to find the largest prime factor of a huge number in C ,for small numbers like 100 or even 10000 it works fine but fails (By fail i mean it keeps running and running for tens of minutes on my core2duo and i5) for very big target numbers (See code for the target number.)
Is my algorithm correct?
I am new to C and really struggling with big numbers. What i want is correction or guidance not a solution i can do this using python with bignum bindings and stuff (I have not tried yet but am pretty sure) but not in C. Or i might have done some tiny mistake that i am too tired to realize , anyways here is the code i wrote:
#include <stdio.h>
// To find largest prime factor of target
int is_prime(unsigned long long int num);
long int main(void) {
unsigned long long int target = 600851475143;
unsigned long long int current_factor = 1;
register unsigned long long int i = 2;
while (i < target) {
if ( (target % i) == 0 && is_prime(i) && (i > current_factor) ) { //verify i as a prime factor and greater than last factor
current_factor = i;
}
i++;
}
printf("The greates is: %llu \n",current_factor);
return(0);
}
int is_prime (unsigned long long int num) { //if num is prime 1 else 0
unsigned long long int z = 2;
while (num > z && z !=num) {
if ((num % z) == 0) {return 0;}
z++;
}
return 1;
}
600 billion iterations of anything will take some non-trivial amount of time. You need to substantially reduce this.
Here's a hint: Given an arbitrary integer value x, if we discover that y is a factor, then we've implicitly discovered that x / y is also a factor. In other words, factors always come in pairs. So there's a limit to how far we need to iterate before we're doing redundant work.
What is that limit? Well, what's the crossover point where y will be greater than x / y?
Once you've applied this optimisation to the outer loop, you'll find that your code's runtime will be limited by the is_prime function. But of course, you may apply a similar technique to that too.
By iterating until the square root of the number, we can get all of it's factors.( factor and N/factor and factor<=sqrt(N)). Under this small idea the solution exists. Any factor less than the sqrt(N) we check, will have corresponding factor larger than sqrt(N). So we only need to check up to the sqrt(N), and then we can get the remaining factors.
Here you don't need to use explicitly any prime finding algorithm. The factorization logic itself will deduce whether the target is prime or not. So all that is left is to check the pairwise factors.
unsigned long long ans ;
for(unsigned long long i = 2; i<=target/i; i++)
while(target % i == 0){
ans = i;
target/=i;
}
if( target > 1 ) ans = target; // that means target is a prime.
//print ans
Edit: A point to be added (chux)- i*i in the earlier code is may lead to overflow which can be avoided if we use i<=target/i.
Also another choice would be to have
unsigned long long sqaure_root = isqrt(target);
for(unsigned long long i = 2; i<=square_root; i++){
...
}
Here note than use of sqrt is not a wise choice since -
mixing of double math with an integer operation is prone to round-off errors.
For target given the answer will be 6857.
Code has 2 major problems
The while (i < target) loop is very inefficient. Upon finding a factor, target could be reduced to target = target / i;. Further, a factor i could occur multiple times. Fix not shown.
is_prime(n) is very inefficient. Its while (num > z && z !=num) could loop n time. Here too, use the quotient to limit the iterations to sqrt(n) times.
int is_prime (unsigned long long int num) {
unsigned long long int z = 2;
while (z <= num/z) {
if ((num % z) == 0) return 0;
z++;
}
return num > 1;
}
Nothing is wrong, it just needs optimization, for example:
int is_prime(unsigned long long int num) {
if (num == 2) {
return (1); /* Special case */
}
if (num % 2 == 0 || num <= 1) {
return (0);
}
unsigned long long int z = 3; /* We skipped the all even numbers */
while (z < num) { /* Do a single test instead of your redundant ones */
if ((num % z) == 0) {
return 0;
}
z += 2; /* Here we go twice as fast */
}
return 1;
}
Also the big other problem is while (z < num) but since you don't want the solution i let you find how to optimize that, similarly look out by yourself the first function.
EDIT: Someone else posted 50 seconds before me the array-list of primes solution which is the best but i chose to give an easy solution since you are just a beginner and manipulating arrays may not be easy at first (need to learn pointers and stuff).
is_prime has a chicken-and-egg problem in that you need to test num only against other primes. So you don't need to check against 9 because that is a multiple of 3.
is_prime could maintain an array of primes and each time a new num is tested that is a pime, it can be added to the array. num isr tested against each prime in the array and if it is not divisable by any of the primes in the array, it is itself a prime and is added to the array. The aray needs to be malloc'd and relloc'd unless there is a formue to calculate the number of primes up intil your target (I believe such formula does not exist).
EDIT: the number of primes to test for the target 600,851,475,143 will be approximately 7,500,000,000 and the table could run out of memory.
The approach can be adapted as follows:
to use unsiged int up until primes of UINT_max
to use unsigned long long int for primes above that
to use brute force above a certain memory consumption.
UINT_MAX is defined as 4,294,967,295 and would cover the primes up to around 100,000,000,000 and would cost 7.5*4= 30Gb
See also The Prime Pages.
I was looking at another question (here) where someone was looking for a way to get the square root of a 64 bit integer in x86 assembly.
This turns out to be very simple. The solution is to convert to a floating point number, calculate the sqrt and then convert back.
I need to do something very similar in C however when I look into equivalents I'm getting a little stuck. I can only find a sqrt function which takes in doubles. Doubles do not have the precision to store large 64bit integers without introducing significant rounding error.
Is there a common math library that I can use which has a long double sqrt function?
There is no need for long double; the square root can be calculated with double (if it is IEEE-754 64-bit binary). The rounding error in converting a 64-bit integer to double is nearly irrelevant in this problem.
The rounding error is at most one part in 253. This causes an error in the square root of at most one part in 254. The sqrt itself has a rounding error of less than one part in 253, due to rounding the mathematical result to the double format. The sum of these errors is tiny; the largest possible square root of a 64-bit integer (rounded to 53 bits) is 232, so an error of three parts in 254 is less than .00000072.
For a uint64_t x, consider sqrt(x). We know this value is within .00000072 of the exact square root of x, but we do not know its direction. If we adjust it to sqrt(x) - 0x1p-20, then we know we have a value that is less than, but very close to, the square root of x.
Then this code calculates the square root of x, truncated to an integer, provided the operations conform to IEEE 754:
uint64_t y = sqrt(x) - 0x1p-20;
if (2*y < x - y*y)
++y;
(2*y < x - y*y is equivalent to (y+1)*(y+1) <= x except that it avoids wrapping the 64-bit integer if y+1 is 232.)
Function sqrtl(), taking a long double, is part of C99.
Note that your compilation platform does not have to implement long double as 80-bit extended-precision. It is only required to be as wide as double, and Visual Studio implements is as a plain double. GCC and Clang do compile long double to 80-bit extended-precision on Intel processors.
Yes, the standard library has sqrtl() (since C99).
If you only want to calculate sqrt for integers, using divide and conquer should find the result in max 32 iterations:
uint64_t mysqrt (uint64_t a)
{
uint64_t min=0;
//uint64_t max=1<<32;
uint64_t max=((uint64_t) 1) << 32; //chux' bugfix
while(1)
{
if (max <= 1 + min)
return min;
uint64_t sqt = min + (max - min)/2;
uint64_t sq = sqt*sqt;
if (sq == a)
return sqt;
if (sq > a)
max = sqt;
else
min = sqt;
}
Debugging is left as exercise for the reader.
Here we collect several observations in order to arrive to a solution:
In standard C >= 1999, it is garanted that non-netative integers have a representation in bits as one would expected for any base-2 number.
----> Hence, we can trust in bit manipulation of this type of numbers.
If x is a unsigned integer type, tnen x >> 1 == x / 2 and x << 1 == x * 2.
(!) But: It is very probable that bit operations shall be done faster than their arithmetical counterparts.
sqrt(x) is mathematically equivalent to exp(log(x)/2.0).
If we consider truncated logarithms and base-2 exponential for integers, we could obtain a fair estimate: IntExp2( IntLog2(x) / 2) "==" IntSqrtDn(x), where "=" is informal notation meaning almost equatl to (in the sense of a good approximation).
If we write IntExp2( IntLog2(x) / 2 + 1) "==" IntSqrtUp(x), we obtain an "above" approximation for the integer square root.
The approximations obtained in (4.) and (5.) are a little rough (they enclose the true value of sqrt(x) between two consecutive powers of 2), but they could be a very well starting point for any algorithm that searchs for the square roor of x.
The Newton algorithm for square root could be work well for integers, if we have a good first approximation to the real solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_square_root
The final algorithm needs some mathematical comprobations to be plenty sure that always work properly, but I will not do it right now... I will show you the final program, instead:
#include <stdio.h> /* For printf()... */
#include <stdint.h> /* For uintmax_t... */
#include <math.h> /* For sqrt() .... */
int IntLog2(uintmax_t n) {
if (n == 0) return -1; /* Error */
int L;
for (L = 0; n >>= 1; L++)
;
return L; /* It takes < 64 steps for long long */
}
uintmax_t IntExp2(int n) {
if (n < 0)
return 0; /* Error */
uintmax_t E;
for (E = 1; n-- > 0; E <<= 1)
;
return E; /* It takes < 64 steps for long long */
}
uintmax_t IntSqrtDn(uintmax_t n) { return IntExp2(IntLog2(n) / 2); }
uintmax_t IntSqrtUp(uintmax_t n) { return IntExp2(IntLog2(n) / 2 + 1); }
int main(void) {
uintmax_t N = 947612934; /* Try here your number! */
uintmax_t sqrtn = IntSqrtDn(N), /* 1st approx. to sqrt(N) by below */
sqrtn0 = IntSqrtUp(N); /* 1st approx. to sqrt(N) by above */
/* The following means while( abs(sqrt-sqrt0) > 1) { stuff... } */
/* However, we take care of subtractions on unsigned arithmetic, just in case... */
while ( (sqrtn > sqrtn0 + 1) || (sqrtn0 > sqrtn+1) )
sqrtn0 = sqrtn, sqrtn = (sqrtn0 + N/sqrtn0) / 2; /* Newton iteration */
printf("N==%llu, sqrt(N)==%g, IntSqrtDn(N)==%llu, IntSqrtUp(N)==%llu, sqrtn==%llu, sqrtn*sqrtn==%llu\n\n",
N, sqrt(N), IntSqrtDn(N), IntSqrtUp(N), sqrtn, sqrtn*sqrtn);
return 0;
}
The last value stored in sqrtn is the integer square root of N.
The last line of the program just shows all the values, with comprobation purposes.
So, you can try different values of Nand see what happens.
If we add a counter inside the while-loop, we'll see that no more than a few iterations happen.
Remark: It is necessary to verify that the condition abs(sqrtn-sqrtn0)<=1 is always achieved when working in the integer-number setting. If not, we shall have to fix the algorithm.
Remark2: In the initialization sentences, observe that sqrtn0 == sqrtn * 2 == sqrtn << 1. This avoids us some calculations.
// sqrt_i64 returns the integer square root of v.
int64_t sqrt_i64(int64_t v) {
uint64_t q = 0, b = 1, r = v;
for( b <<= 62; b > 0 && b > r; b >>= 2);
while( b > 0 ) {
uint64_t t = q + b;
q >>= 1;
if( r >= t ) {
r -= t;
q += b;
}
b >>= 2;
}
return q;
}
The for loop may be optimized by using the clz machine code instruction.
Optimized way to handle the value of n^n (1 ≤ n ≤ 10^9)
I used long long int but it's not good enough as the value might be (1000^1000)
Searched and found the GMP library http://gmplib.org/ and BigInt class but don't wanna use them. I am looking for some numerical method to handle this.
I need to print the first and last k (1 ≤ k ≤ 9) digits of n^n
For the first k digits I am getting it like shown below (it's bit ugly way of doing it)
num = pow(n,n);
while(num){
arr[i++] = num%10;
num /= 10;
digit++;
}
while(digit > 0){
j=digit;
j--;
if(count<k){
printf("%lld",arr[j]);
count++;
}
digit--;
}
and for last k digits am using num % 10^k like below.
findk=pow(10,k);
lastDigits = num % findk;
enter code here
maximum value of k is 9. so i need only 18 digits at max.
I am think of getting those 18 digits without really solving the complete n^n expression.
Any idea/suggestion??
// note: Scope of use is limited.
#include <stdio.h>
long long powerMod(long long a, long long d, long long n){
// a ^ d mod n
long long result = 1;
while(d > 0){
if(d & 1)
result = result * a % n;
a = (a * a) % n;
d >>=1;
}
return result;
}
int main(void){
long long result = powerMod(999, 999, 1000000000);//999^999 mod 10^9
printf("%lld\n", result);//499998999
return 0;
}
Finding the Least Significant Digits (last k digits) are easy because of the property of modular arithmetic, which says: (n*n)%m == (n%m * n%m)%m, so the code shown by BLUEPIXY which followed exponentiation by squaring method will work well for finding k LSDs.
Now, Most Significant Digits (1st k digits) of N^N can be found in this way:
We know,
N^N = 10^(N log N)
So if you calculate N log (N) you will get a number of this format xxxx.yyyy, now we have to use this number as a power of 10, it is easily understandable that xxxx or integer part of the number will add xxxx zeros after 10, which is not important for you! That means, if you calculate 10^0.yyyy, you will get those significants digits you are looking for.
So the solution will be something like this:
double R = N * log10 (N);
R = R - (long long) R; //so taking only the fractional part
double V = pow(10, R);
int powerK = 1;
for (int i=0; i<k; i++) powerK *=10;
V *= powerK;
//Now Print the 1st K digits from V
Why don't you want to use bigint libraries?
bignum arithmetic is very hard to do right and efficiently. You could still get a PhD by working on that subject.
Fist, bigint arithmetic have non-trivial algorithmics
Then, bigint implementations usually need some machine instructions (like add with carry) which are not easily accessible in plain C.
For your specific problem (first and last few digits of NN) you'll better also reason on paper (using arithmetic theorems) to lower the complexity. I am not an expert, but I guess that still remains intractable, perhaps with a complexity worse than O(N)