smallest number for given sum of digits











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I am trying to find the smallest number if we are given the sum of its digits. Suppose that sum of digits is 9 then it should be 9 instead of 18,36,63 and similarly if sum of digits is 11 then desired answer is 29 not 92 or any other number bigger than 29.I tried to write sum of all numbers upto 53 and got this but i am not able to come up with a general formula.
from 1 to 9 it is just 9.FROM 10 to 18 it is 19,29,39,...... and for 19(1+9) it is 199 that is increase by 100.
from 19 to 27 it is 199,299,399,499.... and for 28 it is 1999 that is increase by 1000.
from 29 to 36 it is 29999,39999,49999,..... for 37 it is 19999 (increse by 10000).
for 38 to 45 it is it is 29999,39999,49999,........999999 and for 46 it is 199999 (increased by 100000)










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Your title says "sum of sum of digits" and your question says "sum of digits". They are not the same thing!
    – TonyK
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:38










  • @Tonyk i corrected the title but don't downvote it.
    – satyajeet jha
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40










  • Write $n=9q+r$ where $0leq r<9$. Then the number you seek is $(r+1)10^{q}-1$.
    – Thomas Andrews
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40












  • Isn't the solution merely filling as many of the least-significant digits as possible with $9$s and then putting the remaining number in the most-significant digit? In short: pack the least-significant digits with values as high as possible.
    – David G. Stork
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:52












  • @satya: Isn't this the same question as math.stackexchange.com/q/1661620/117283? (Not to mention stackoverflow.com/q/35487923/270986 .)
    – Mark Dickinson
    Feb 19 '16 at 20:38

















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I am trying to find the smallest number if we are given the sum of its digits. Suppose that sum of digits is 9 then it should be 9 instead of 18,36,63 and similarly if sum of digits is 11 then desired answer is 29 not 92 or any other number bigger than 29.I tried to write sum of all numbers upto 53 and got this but i am not able to come up with a general formula.
from 1 to 9 it is just 9.FROM 10 to 18 it is 19,29,39,...... and for 19(1+9) it is 199 that is increase by 100.
from 19 to 27 it is 199,299,399,499.... and for 28 it is 1999 that is increase by 1000.
from 29 to 36 it is 29999,39999,49999,..... for 37 it is 19999 (increse by 10000).
for 38 to 45 it is it is 29999,39999,49999,........999999 and for 46 it is 199999 (increased by 100000)










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Your title says "sum of sum of digits" and your question says "sum of digits". They are not the same thing!
    – TonyK
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:38










  • @Tonyk i corrected the title but don't downvote it.
    – satyajeet jha
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40










  • Write $n=9q+r$ where $0leq r<9$. Then the number you seek is $(r+1)10^{q}-1$.
    – Thomas Andrews
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40












  • Isn't the solution merely filling as many of the least-significant digits as possible with $9$s and then putting the remaining number in the most-significant digit? In short: pack the least-significant digits with values as high as possible.
    – David G. Stork
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:52












  • @satya: Isn't this the same question as math.stackexchange.com/q/1661620/117283? (Not to mention stackoverflow.com/q/35487923/270986 .)
    – Mark Dickinson
    Feb 19 '16 at 20:38















up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I am trying to find the smallest number if we are given the sum of its digits. Suppose that sum of digits is 9 then it should be 9 instead of 18,36,63 and similarly if sum of digits is 11 then desired answer is 29 not 92 or any other number bigger than 29.I tried to write sum of all numbers upto 53 and got this but i am not able to come up with a general formula.
from 1 to 9 it is just 9.FROM 10 to 18 it is 19,29,39,...... and for 19(1+9) it is 199 that is increase by 100.
from 19 to 27 it is 199,299,399,499.... and for 28 it is 1999 that is increase by 1000.
from 29 to 36 it is 29999,39999,49999,..... for 37 it is 19999 (increse by 10000).
for 38 to 45 it is it is 29999,39999,49999,........999999 and for 46 it is 199999 (increased by 100000)










share|cite|improve this question















I am trying to find the smallest number if we are given the sum of its digits. Suppose that sum of digits is 9 then it should be 9 instead of 18,36,63 and similarly if sum of digits is 11 then desired answer is 29 not 92 or any other number bigger than 29.I tried to write sum of all numbers upto 53 and got this but i am not able to come up with a general formula.
from 1 to 9 it is just 9.FROM 10 to 18 it is 19,29,39,...... and for 19(1+9) it is 199 that is increase by 100.
from 19 to 27 it is 199,299,399,499.... and for 28 it is 1999 that is increase by 1000.
from 29 to 36 it is 29999,39999,49999,..... for 37 it is 19999 (increse by 10000).
for 38 to 45 it is it is 29999,39999,49999,........999999 and for 46 it is 199999 (increased by 100000)







number-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 17 '16 at 21:39

























asked Feb 17 '16 at 21:35









satyajeet jha

331214




331214












  • Your title says "sum of sum of digits" and your question says "sum of digits". They are not the same thing!
    – TonyK
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:38










  • @Tonyk i corrected the title but don't downvote it.
    – satyajeet jha
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40










  • Write $n=9q+r$ where $0leq r<9$. Then the number you seek is $(r+1)10^{q}-1$.
    – Thomas Andrews
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40












  • Isn't the solution merely filling as many of the least-significant digits as possible with $9$s and then putting the remaining number in the most-significant digit? In short: pack the least-significant digits with values as high as possible.
    – David G. Stork
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:52












  • @satya: Isn't this the same question as math.stackexchange.com/q/1661620/117283? (Not to mention stackoverflow.com/q/35487923/270986 .)
    – Mark Dickinson
    Feb 19 '16 at 20:38




















  • Your title says "sum of sum of digits" and your question says "sum of digits". They are not the same thing!
    – TonyK
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:38










  • @Tonyk i corrected the title but don't downvote it.
    – satyajeet jha
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40










  • Write $n=9q+r$ where $0leq r<9$. Then the number you seek is $(r+1)10^{q}-1$.
    – Thomas Andrews
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:40












  • Isn't the solution merely filling as many of the least-significant digits as possible with $9$s and then putting the remaining number in the most-significant digit? In short: pack the least-significant digits with values as high as possible.
    – David G. Stork
    Feb 17 '16 at 21:52












  • @satya: Isn't this the same question as math.stackexchange.com/q/1661620/117283? (Not to mention stackoverflow.com/q/35487923/270986 .)
    – Mark Dickinson
    Feb 19 '16 at 20:38


















Your title says "sum of sum of digits" and your question says "sum of digits". They are not the same thing!
– TonyK
Feb 17 '16 at 21:38




Your title says "sum of sum of digits" and your question says "sum of digits". They are not the same thing!
– TonyK
Feb 17 '16 at 21:38












@Tonyk i corrected the title but don't downvote it.
– satyajeet jha
Feb 17 '16 at 21:40




@Tonyk i corrected the title but don't downvote it.
– satyajeet jha
Feb 17 '16 at 21:40












Write $n=9q+r$ where $0leq r<9$. Then the number you seek is $(r+1)10^{q}-1$.
– Thomas Andrews
Feb 17 '16 at 21:40






Write $n=9q+r$ where $0leq r<9$. Then the number you seek is $(r+1)10^{q}-1$.
– Thomas Andrews
Feb 17 '16 at 21:40














Isn't the solution merely filling as many of the least-significant digits as possible with $9$s and then putting the remaining number in the most-significant digit? In short: pack the least-significant digits with values as high as possible.
– David G. Stork
Feb 17 '16 at 21:52






Isn't the solution merely filling as many of the least-significant digits as possible with $9$s and then putting the remaining number in the most-significant digit? In short: pack the least-significant digits with values as high as possible.
– David G. Stork
Feb 17 '16 at 21:52














@satya: Isn't this the same question as math.stackexchange.com/q/1661620/117283? (Not to mention stackoverflow.com/q/35487923/270986 .)
– Mark Dickinson
Feb 19 '16 at 20:38






@satya: Isn't this the same question as math.stackexchange.com/q/1661620/117283? (Not to mention stackoverflow.com/q/35487923/270986 .)
– Mark Dickinson
Feb 19 '16 at 20:38












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













In our so-called positional numeration system, the digits get a weight that increases from right to left, following the powers of ten (units, tens, hundreds, thousands...).



So to minimize the number you will allocate the budget in priority to the positions with the smallest weight.



This is why the solution is by putting as many $9$s to the right as you can, preceded by the remainder of the budget. There will be $btext{ div }9$ nines and the digit $bbmod9$, forming the number



$$(bbmod 9)10^{btext{ div }9}+10^{btext{ div }9}-1=(bbmod 9+1)10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$





If on the opposite you want to maximize the sum, then you must forbid the digit $0$ (because you could insert them "for free"), and the solution is formed by a maximum of $9$s followed by the remainder, i.e.



$$10,(10^{btext{ div }9}-1)+bbmod9$$ unless $bbmod9=0$, then



$$10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Let's build the output number starting from the last (i.e. the lowest) digit.



    As long as the input number is bigger than 9, it is the best way to set the current digit of the output number to 9 than to any other value.
    If you, hypothetically, set it to a value lower than 9, you would have to set another digit in the front to a higher value. So, your whole number would be higher.



    If the input number is smaller than 9, just add it to the front of the output number.



    i = 0
    while(input > 9) {
    // Set i-th digit of output to 9
    output.set(i, 9)
    input = input - 9
    i = i+1
    }

    // Finally set the front digit of output to the rest of input
    output.set(i, input)


    In your example with 29, there would be one while-loop. The last digit of output would be set to 9. Then, the front digit of output would be set to 2.



    Mathematically:



    $$
    text{output} = x99dots9
    $$



    where you have $log_9(text{input})$ $9$'s behind the $x$ and $x = text{input} - log_9(text{output})$.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      up vote
      -1
      down vote













      I have found a general formula to find the smallest number whose digits sum up to S and has M digits. Here is a python implementation of it:



      def bla(M,S):
      n=(S+7)//9
      sl=9*n -7
      c=10**(n-1)
      b=10**(M-1)
      p=int((2+S-sl)*c -1)
      return p+b


      If you have any doubts please comment below.






      share|cite|improve this answer























      • If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
        – Albharath
        Nov 19 at 15:03











      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1660540%2fsmallest-number-for-given-sum-of-digits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      2
      down vote













      In our so-called positional numeration system, the digits get a weight that increases from right to left, following the powers of ten (units, tens, hundreds, thousands...).



      So to minimize the number you will allocate the budget in priority to the positions with the smallest weight.



      This is why the solution is by putting as many $9$s to the right as you can, preceded by the remainder of the budget. There will be $btext{ div }9$ nines and the digit $bbmod9$, forming the number



      $$(bbmod 9)10^{btext{ div }9}+10^{btext{ div }9}-1=(bbmod 9+1)10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$





      If on the opposite you want to maximize the sum, then you must forbid the digit $0$ (because you could insert them "for free"), and the solution is formed by a maximum of $9$s followed by the remainder, i.e.



      $$10,(10^{btext{ div }9}-1)+bbmod9$$ unless $bbmod9=0$, then



      $$10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$






      share|cite|improve this answer



























        up vote
        2
        down vote













        In our so-called positional numeration system, the digits get a weight that increases from right to left, following the powers of ten (units, tens, hundreds, thousands...).



        So to minimize the number you will allocate the budget in priority to the positions with the smallest weight.



        This is why the solution is by putting as many $9$s to the right as you can, preceded by the remainder of the budget. There will be $btext{ div }9$ nines and the digit $bbmod9$, forming the number



        $$(bbmod 9)10^{btext{ div }9}+10^{btext{ div }9}-1=(bbmod 9+1)10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$





        If on the opposite you want to maximize the sum, then you must forbid the digit $0$ (because you could insert them "for free"), and the solution is formed by a maximum of $9$s followed by the remainder, i.e.



        $$10,(10^{btext{ div }9}-1)+bbmod9$$ unless $bbmod9=0$, then



        $$10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          2
          down vote










          up vote
          2
          down vote









          In our so-called positional numeration system, the digits get a weight that increases from right to left, following the powers of ten (units, tens, hundreds, thousands...).



          So to minimize the number you will allocate the budget in priority to the positions with the smallest weight.



          This is why the solution is by putting as many $9$s to the right as you can, preceded by the remainder of the budget. There will be $btext{ div }9$ nines and the digit $bbmod9$, forming the number



          $$(bbmod 9)10^{btext{ div }9}+10^{btext{ div }9}-1=(bbmod 9+1)10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$





          If on the opposite you want to maximize the sum, then you must forbid the digit $0$ (because you could insert them "for free"), and the solution is formed by a maximum of $9$s followed by the remainder, i.e.



          $$10,(10^{btext{ div }9}-1)+bbmod9$$ unless $bbmod9=0$, then



          $$10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$






          share|cite|improve this answer














          In our so-called positional numeration system, the digits get a weight that increases from right to left, following the powers of ten (units, tens, hundreds, thousands...).



          So to minimize the number you will allocate the budget in priority to the positions with the smallest weight.



          This is why the solution is by putting as many $9$s to the right as you can, preceded by the remainder of the budget. There will be $btext{ div }9$ nines and the digit $bbmod9$, forming the number



          $$(bbmod 9)10^{btext{ div }9}+10^{btext{ div }9}-1=(bbmod 9+1)10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$





          If on the opposite you want to maximize the sum, then you must forbid the digit $0$ (because you could insert them "for free"), and the solution is formed by a maximum of $9$s followed by the remainder, i.e.



          $$10,(10^{btext{ div }9}-1)+bbmod9$$ unless $bbmod9=0$, then



          $$10^{btext{ div }9}-1.$$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Aug 9 '16 at 10:06

























          answered Aug 9 '16 at 9:40









          Yves Daoust

          123k668219




          123k668219






















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Let's build the output number starting from the last (i.e. the lowest) digit.



              As long as the input number is bigger than 9, it is the best way to set the current digit of the output number to 9 than to any other value.
              If you, hypothetically, set it to a value lower than 9, you would have to set another digit in the front to a higher value. So, your whole number would be higher.



              If the input number is smaller than 9, just add it to the front of the output number.



              i = 0
              while(input > 9) {
              // Set i-th digit of output to 9
              output.set(i, 9)
              input = input - 9
              i = i+1
              }

              // Finally set the front digit of output to the rest of input
              output.set(i, input)


              In your example with 29, there would be one while-loop. The last digit of output would be set to 9. Then, the front digit of output would be set to 2.



              Mathematically:



              $$
              text{output} = x99dots9
              $$



              where you have $log_9(text{input})$ $9$'s behind the $x$ and $x = text{input} - log_9(text{output})$.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                Let's build the output number starting from the last (i.e. the lowest) digit.



                As long as the input number is bigger than 9, it is the best way to set the current digit of the output number to 9 than to any other value.
                If you, hypothetically, set it to a value lower than 9, you would have to set another digit in the front to a higher value. So, your whole number would be higher.



                If the input number is smaller than 9, just add it to the front of the output number.



                i = 0
                while(input > 9) {
                // Set i-th digit of output to 9
                output.set(i, 9)
                input = input - 9
                i = i+1
                }

                // Finally set the front digit of output to the rest of input
                output.set(i, input)


                In your example with 29, there would be one while-loop. The last digit of output would be set to 9. Then, the front digit of output would be set to 2.



                Mathematically:



                $$
                text{output} = x99dots9
                $$



                where you have $log_9(text{input})$ $9$'s behind the $x$ and $x = text{input} - log_9(text{output})$.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  Let's build the output number starting from the last (i.e. the lowest) digit.



                  As long as the input number is bigger than 9, it is the best way to set the current digit of the output number to 9 than to any other value.
                  If you, hypothetically, set it to a value lower than 9, you would have to set another digit in the front to a higher value. So, your whole number would be higher.



                  If the input number is smaller than 9, just add it to the front of the output number.



                  i = 0
                  while(input > 9) {
                  // Set i-th digit of output to 9
                  output.set(i, 9)
                  input = input - 9
                  i = i+1
                  }

                  // Finally set the front digit of output to the rest of input
                  output.set(i, input)


                  In your example with 29, there would be one while-loop. The last digit of output would be set to 9. Then, the front digit of output would be set to 2.



                  Mathematically:



                  $$
                  text{output} = x99dots9
                  $$



                  where you have $log_9(text{input})$ $9$'s behind the $x$ and $x = text{input} - log_9(text{output})$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Let's build the output number starting from the last (i.e. the lowest) digit.



                  As long as the input number is bigger than 9, it is the best way to set the current digit of the output number to 9 than to any other value.
                  If you, hypothetically, set it to a value lower than 9, you would have to set another digit in the front to a higher value. So, your whole number would be higher.



                  If the input number is smaller than 9, just add it to the front of the output number.



                  i = 0
                  while(input > 9) {
                  // Set i-th digit of output to 9
                  output.set(i, 9)
                  input = input - 9
                  i = i+1
                  }

                  // Finally set the front digit of output to the rest of input
                  output.set(i, input)


                  In your example with 29, there would be one while-loop. The last digit of output would be set to 9. Then, the front digit of output would be set to 2.



                  Mathematically:



                  $$
                  text{output} = x99dots9
                  $$



                  where you have $log_9(text{input})$ $9$'s behind the $x$ and $x = text{input} - log_9(text{output})$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 9 '16 at 9:25









                  JavAlex

                  1




                  1






















                      up vote
                      -1
                      down vote













                      I have found a general formula to find the smallest number whose digits sum up to S and has M digits. Here is a python implementation of it:



                      def bla(M,S):
                      n=(S+7)//9
                      sl=9*n -7
                      c=10**(n-1)
                      b=10**(M-1)
                      p=int((2+S-sl)*c -1)
                      return p+b


                      If you have any doubts please comment below.






                      share|cite|improve this answer























                      • If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
                        – Albharath
                        Nov 19 at 15:03















                      up vote
                      -1
                      down vote













                      I have found a general formula to find the smallest number whose digits sum up to S and has M digits. Here is a python implementation of it:



                      def bla(M,S):
                      n=(S+7)//9
                      sl=9*n -7
                      c=10**(n-1)
                      b=10**(M-1)
                      p=int((2+S-sl)*c -1)
                      return p+b


                      If you have any doubts please comment below.






                      share|cite|improve this answer























                      • If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
                        – Albharath
                        Nov 19 at 15:03













                      up vote
                      -1
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      -1
                      down vote









                      I have found a general formula to find the smallest number whose digits sum up to S and has M digits. Here is a python implementation of it:



                      def bla(M,S):
                      n=(S+7)//9
                      sl=9*n -7
                      c=10**(n-1)
                      b=10**(M-1)
                      p=int((2+S-sl)*c -1)
                      return p+b


                      If you have any doubts please comment below.






                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      I have found a general formula to find the smallest number whose digits sum up to S and has M digits. Here is a python implementation of it:



                      def bla(M,S):
                      n=(S+7)//9
                      sl=9*n -7
                      c=10**(n-1)
                      b=10**(M-1)
                      p=int((2+S-sl)*c -1)
                      return p+b


                      If you have any doubts please comment below.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Nov 19 at 15:01

























                      answered Nov 19 at 14:55









                      Albharath

                      12




                      12












                      • If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
                        – Albharath
                        Nov 19 at 15:03


















                      • If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
                        – Albharath
                        Nov 19 at 15:03
















                      If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
                      – Albharath
                      Nov 19 at 15:03




                      If you feel it is wrong then do comment with your reason.
                      – Albharath
                      Nov 19 at 15:03


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1660540%2fsmallest-number-for-given-sum-of-digits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

                      How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...