Having a weird problem while converting char pointer to char array in C/C++ .

Question

For a specific need i need to split a char pointer into two char arrays

The char pointer has 4 charecters and 2 char arrays should hold 2 chaecters from the pointer

Like this

######################################

char * n = "1023"

char a[2];

char b[2];

a[0] = n[0];
a[1] = n[1];

b[0] = n[3];
b[1] = n[4];

Now array 'a' and 'b' should hold and print the value 10 and 23 respectively but except desired output, it sometimes prints unwanted characters or some wrong value

https://code.sololearn.com/cBje1CPy7Q2V/?ref=app

I tried doing same thing using 'strcpy()' and storing the pointer into a bigger sized array before splitting into two smaller arrays

######################################

https://code.sololearn.com/cHSfNm2681Qh/?ref=app

A help to solve this problem will be highly appreciated
Thank you.

NB:
Question Code 1: Code without strcpy()
Question Code 2: Code using strcpy()

Answer 1

you need a null ('\0') byte.

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main()
{
char * n = "1024";
char a[3];
char b[3];
memset(a, 0, 3);
memset(b, 0, 3);
a[0]=n[0];
a[1]=n[1];
b[0]=n[3];
b[1]=n[4];
printf("%s\n",a);
printf("%s",b);
}

// to get correct output:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>

int main()
{
char * n = "1024";
char a[3];
char b[3];
memset(a, 0, 3);
memset(b, 0, 3);
a[0]=n[0];
a[1]=n[1];
b[0]=n[2];
b[1]=n[3];
printf("%s\n",a);
printf("%s\n",b);
}

Answer 2

Also change b[0]=n[2] and b[1]=n[3]

Answer 3

I would write in a much simpler way:
char* n = "1024";
char a[3] = {n[0], n[1]};
char b[3] = {n[2], n[3]};

printf("%s\n",a);
printf("%s",b);

Answer 4

Thanks to Flash but instead of the 'memset()'

#########################

#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
// Check Examples

//Compiler version gcc 6.3.0

int main()
{
char * n = "1024";

char a[3];
char b[3];

a[0]=n[0];
a[1]=n[1];
a[2]='\0';

b[0]=n[2];
b[1]=n[3];
b[2]='\0';

printf("%s\n",a);
printf("%s",b);
}

#########################

The code Above seemed to be a better substitute