Related
Thanks to Nina I have a code to compare two sentences word by word and return the number of word matches like this:
function includeWords(wanted, seen) {
var wantedMap = wanted.split(/\s+/).reduce((m, s) => m.set(s, (m.get(s) || 0) + 1), new Map),
wantedArray = Array.from(wantedMap.keys()),
count = 0;
seen.split(/\s+/)
.forEach(s => {
var key = wantedArray.find(t => s === t || s.length > 3 && t.length > 3 && (s.startsWith(t) || t.startsWith(s)));
if (!wantedMap.get(key)) return;
console.log(s, key)
++count;
wantedMap.set(key, wantedMap.get(key) - 1);
});
return count;
}
let matches = includeWords('i was sent to earth to protect you introduced', 'they\'re were protecting him i knew that i was aware introducing');
console.log('Matched words: ' + matches);
The code works fine, but there is still one issue:
What if we want to return a match for introduced and introducing too?
If you want the program to consider the words 'introduce' and 'introducing' as a match, it would amount to a "fuzzy" match (non binary logic). One simple way of doing this would require more code, the algorithm of which would possibly resemble
Take 2 words that you wish to match, tokenize into ordered list
of letters
Compare positionally the respective letters, i.e
match a[0]==b[0]? a[1]==b[1] where a[0] represents the first letter
of the first word and b[0] represents the first tokenized
letter/character potential match candidate
KEep a rolling numeric count of such positional matches. In this case it is 8 (introduc).
divide by word length of a = 8/9 call this f
divide by word length of b = 8/11 call this g
Provide a threshold value beyond which the program will consider it a match. eg. if you say anything above 70% in BOTH f and g can be
considered a match - viola, you have your answer!
Please note that there is some normalization also needed to prevent low length words from becoming false positives. you can add a constraint that the aforementioned calculation applies to words with at least 5 letters(or something to that effect!
Hope this helps!!
Regards,
SR
You could calculate similarites for a word pair and get a relation how many characters are similar bei respecting the length of the given word and the wanted pattern.
function getSimilarity(a, b) {
var i = 0;
while (i < a.length) {
if (a[i] !== b[i]) break;
i++;
}
return i / Math.max(a.length, b.length);
}
console.log(getSimilarity('abcdefghij', 'abc')); // 0.3
console.log(getSimilarity('abcdefghij', 'abcdef')); // 0.6
console.log(getSimilarity('abcdefghij', 'abcdefghij')); // 1
console.log(getSimilarity('abcdef', 'abcdefghij')); // 0.6
console.log(getSimilarity('abcdefghij', 'abcdef')); // 0.6
console.log(getSimilarity('abcdefghij', 'xyz')); // 0
console.log(getSimilarity('introduced', 'introducing')); // 0.7272727272727273
Here's a quick fix solution.
It's not intended as a complete solution.
Since the English language has more than a few quirks that would almost require an AI to understand the language.
First add a function that can compare 2 words and returns a boolean.
It'll also make it easier to test for specific words, and adapt to what's really needed.
For example, here's a function that does the simple checks that were already used.
Plus an '...ed' versus '...ing' check.
function compareWords (word1, word2) {
if (word1 === word2)
return true;
if (word1.length > 3 && word2.length > 3) {
if (word1.startsWith(word2) || word2.startsWith(word1))
return true;
if (word1.length > 4 && word2.length > 4) {
if (/(ing|ed)$/.test(word1) && word1.replace(/(ing|ed)$/, 'inged') === word2.replace(/(ing|ed)$/, 'inged'))
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
//
// tests
//
let words = [
["same", "same"],
["different", "unsame"],
["priced", "pricing"],
["price", "priced"],
["producing", "produced"],
["produced", "producing"]
];
words.forEach( (arr, idx) => {
let word1= arr[0];
let word2= arr[1];
let isSame = compareWords(word1, word2);
console.log(`[${word1}] ≈ [${word2}] : ${isSame}`);
});
Then use it in the code you already have.
...
seen.split(/\s+/)
.forEach(s => {
var key = wantedArray.find(t => compareWords(t, s));
...
Regarding string similarity, here's f.e. an older SO post that has some methods to compare strings : Compare Strings Javascript Return %of Likely
I have implemented this, it seems to work fine. any suggestions would be appreciated..
let speechResult = "i was sent to earth to introducing protect yourself introduced seen";
let expectSt = ['they were protecting him knew introducing that you i seen was aware seen introducing'];
// Create arrays of words from above sentences
let speechResultWords = speechResult.split(/\s+/);
let expectStWords = expectSt[0].split(/\s+/);
function includeWords(){
// Declare a variable to hold the count number of matches
let arr = [];
for(let a = 0; a < speechResultWords.length; a++){
for(let b = 0; b < expectStWords.length; b++){
if(similarity(speechResultWords[a], expectStWords[b]) > 69){
arr.push(speechResultWords[a]);
console.log(speechResultWords[a] + ' includes in ' + expectStWords[b]);
}
} // End of first for loop
} // End of second for loop
let uniq = [...new Set(arr)];
return uniq.length;
};
let result = includeWords();
console.log(result)
// The algorithmn
function similarity(s1, s2) {
var longer = s1;
var shorter = s2;
if (s1.length < s2.length) {
longer = s2;
shorter = s1;
}
var longerLength = longer.length;
if (longerLength == 0) {
return 1.0;
}
return (longerLength - editDistance(longer, shorter)) / parseFloat(longerLength)*100;
}
function editDistance(s1, s2) {
s1 = s1.toLowerCase();
s2 = s2.toLowerCase();
var costs = new Array();
for (var i = 0; i <= s1.length; i++) {
var lastValue = i;
for (var j = 0; j <= s2.length; j++) {
if (i == 0)
costs[j] = j;
else {
if (j > 0) {
var newValue = costs[j - 1];
if (s1.charAt(i - 1) != s2.charAt(j - 1))
newValue = Math.min(Math.min(newValue, lastValue),
costs[j]) + 1;
costs[j - 1] = lastValue;
lastValue = newValue;
}
}
}
if (i > 0)
costs[s2.length] = lastValue;
}
return costs[s2.length];
}
I am trying to solve a question on CodeWars that was part of the Google CodeJam 2016 qualification rounds.
https://www.codewars.com/kata/bleatrix-trotter-the-counting-sheep/train/javascript
I believe my code accounts for all test cases, my only issue is that it cannot be submitted on codewars because it has a runtime greater than 12000 ms.
How Can I make my Code more efficient?? also is there a best practice for testing whether the loop will be infinite.
function trotter(n) {
var tracker = [];
var sum = [];
var snacker = n;
for(var i = 0; tracker.length < 10; i++){
sum = snacker.toString().split('');
sum.forEach(function(num) {
if (tracker.indexOf(num) == -1) {
tracker.push(num);
}
});
snacker += n;
}
return tracker.length === 10 ? snacker - n : "INSOMNIA";
}
When performance matters and reduced readability is not an issue you should:
Prefer for and while loops rather than built-ins like map, forEach...
In recent (2016) versions of JavaScript, it looks like for loops, specially reverse for loops, are the most performant option.
Also, keep in mind that you don't need to use its 3 expressions. For example, for me...:
let found = 0;
for (;found < 10;) {
and
let j = chars.length;
for (;j;) {
consistently returned better results than the same with the initialisation in the initialisation slot and than while loops, although in this latter case the difference was not so big.
For more one this, see Javascript Performance: While vs For Loops
When using foo.bar in a while's or for's expression, such as for (let i = 0; i < array.length; ++i), prefer to declare the limit condition above so that it is not evaluated each time, as that involves an object lookup:
const totalElements = array.length;
for (let i = 0; i < totalElements; ++i) { ... }
Prefer pre-increment instead of post-increment. The latter will create a temporary variable storing the pre-incrementation value, which will return to you, while the former will first do the increment and then return the incremented value. No temporary variable needed.
For more on this, see post increment vs pre increment - Javascript Optimization
Actually, if the result is going to be the same regardless which one you use, then I would advise you to use pre-increment whenever possible.
Avoid built-in methods that have an equivalent expression. For example, (n + '') is more performant than n.toString().
Avoid type conversions and prefer using integers rather than floats or strings as modern JS engines tag variable types. That means that, on one hand, changing types will have a performance penalty, and, on the other hand, that using them consistently will allow the engine to do some type-specific optimisation.
For more on this, see https://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/speed/v8/
Use bitwise operators when possible. For example, an integer division can be done with Math.floor(a /b) or with a / b | 0, which is almost twice as fast.
For more on integer division in JavaScript, see this interesting thread: How to perform integer division and get the remainder in JavaScript?
Prefer an object lookup (object.prop or object['prop']) rather than using Array.prototype.indexOf(...).
See Javascript: what lookup is faster: array.indexOf vs object hash?
Avoid using arrays and objects and related methods when there are alternatives with simpler structures or inmutable data structures.
For example, #RobG's solution uses splice. While I'm not aware of the internal implementation, probably it is shifting the elements that come after the deleted ones to compact the array again and updating its length as well.
With my solution, however, the length of the array is always the same and you are just changing its values from false to true, which involves much less overhead, as there's no need to reallocate space.
Use typed arrays when possible, though I tried Uint8Array here, both assigning it true and 1, and none of them improved the times; the former actually almost doubled the time and the first one kept them more or less the same. Maybe it there was a BooleanArray it could work.
Keep in mind this is just a list of some techniques or features I think may help to speed up your example. I highly recommend you to read the external links I added as well in order to better understand how and why they work and where else they can be applied.
Moreover, in general, the lower level you keep your code, that is, you using basic data types and operations, the most performance it will be.
To prove that, below I show you a highly optimised version of this code that uses integer division (n / 10) | 0 and remainder (%).
function trotter(N) {
if (N === 0) return 'INSOMNIA';
const digits = [false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false];
let n;
let last = 0;
let found = 0;
for (;found < 10;) {
n = last += N;
for (;n;) {
const digit = n % 10;
n = (n / 10) | 0;
if (!digits[digit]) {
digits[digit] = true;
++found;
}
}
}
return last;
}
const numbers = [0, 2, 7, 125, 1625, 1692];
const outputs = ['INSOMNIA', 90, 70, 9000, 9750, 5076];
// CHECK IT WORKS FIRST:
numbers.map((number, index) => {
if (trotter(number) !== outputs[index]) {
console.log('EXPECTED = ' + outputs[index]);
console.log(' GOT = ' + trotter(number));
throw new Error('Incorrect value.');
}
});
// PERF. TEST:
const ITERATIONS = 1000000;
const t0 = performance.now();
for (let i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; ++i) {
numbers.map((number, index) => trotter(number));
}
const t1 = performance.now();
console.log(`AVG. TIME: ${ (t1 - t0) / ITERATIONS } ms. with ${ ITERATIONS } ITERATIONS`);
AVG. TIME: 0.0033206450000000005 ms. with 1000000 ITERATIONS
BROWSER: Google Chrome Version 59.0.3071.86 (Official Build) (64-bit)
OS: macOS Sierra
BRAND, MODEL: MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)
PROCESSOR: 2,8 GHz Intel Core i7
MEMORY: 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Below you can see my initial answer, which uses some of the other optimisations listed here, but still converts the number variable n to string and uses String.prototype.split() to get its digits.
It is almost 5 times slower then the one above!
function trotter(N) {
if (N === 0) return 'INSOMNIA';
const digits = [false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false, false];
let n = N;
let i = 0;
let found = 0;
for (;found < 10;) {
// There's no need for this multiplication:
n = N * ++i;
// Type conversion + Built-in String.prototype.split(), both can
// be avoided:
const chars = (n + '').split('');
let j = chars.length;
for (;j;) {
const digit = chars[--j];
if (!digits[digit]) {
digits[digit] = true;
++found;
}
}
}
return n;
}
const numbers = [0, 2, 7, 125, 1625, 1692];
const outputs = ['INSOMNIA', 90, 70, 9000, 9750, 5076];
// CHECK IT WORKS FIRST:
numbers.map((number, index) => {
if (trotter(number) !== outputs[index]) {
console.log('EXPECTED = ' + outputs[index]);
console.log(' GOT = ' + trotter(number));
throw new Error('Incorrect value.');
}
});
// PERF. TEST:
const ITERATIONS = 1000000;
const t0 = performance.now();
for (let i = 0; i < ITERATIONS; ++i) {
numbers.map((number, index) => trotter(number));
}
const t1 = performance.now();
console.log(`AVG. TIME: ${ (t1 - t0) / ITERATIONS } ms. with ${ ITERATIONS } ITERATIONS`);
AVG. TIME: 0.016428575000000004 ms. with 1000000 ITERATIONS
BROWSER: Google Chrome Version 59.0.3071.86 (Official Build) (64-bit)
OS: macOS Sierra
BRAND, MODEL: MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2015)
PROCESSOR: 2,8 GHz Intel Core i7
MEMORY: 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
Another approach:
function trotter(n){
var unseen = '0123456789', last = 0;
while (unseen != '' && last < 72*n) {
last += n;
var reg = new RegExp('[' + last + ']+', 'g');
unseen = unseen.replace(reg, '');
}
return unseen != '' ? 'INSOMNIA' : last;
};
console.log('0 : ' + trotter(0));
console.log('125 : ' + trotter(125));
console.log('1625: ' + trotter(1625));
The following code has no special optimisations and uses all ECMA-262 ed 3 methods. It ran the full suite of tests in 339 ms.
function trotter(n){
var nums = ['0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9'];
var i = 1;
// Zero creates an infinite loop, so skip it
if (n !== 0) {
// While there are numbers to remove, keep going
// Limit loops to 100 just in case
while (nums.length && i < 100) {
// Get test number as an array of digits
var d = ('' + (n * i)).split('');
// For each digit, if in nums remove it
for (var j=0, jLen=d.length; j<jLen; j++) {
var idx = nums.indexOf(d[j]);
if (idx > -1) nums.splice(idx, 1);
}
i++;
}
}
// If there are numbers left, didn't get to sleep
// Otherwise, return last number seen (put d back together and make a numer)
return nums.length? 'INSOMNIA' : Number(d.join(''));
}
console.log('0 : ' + trotter(0));
console.log('125 : ' + trotter(125));
console.log('1625: ' + trotter(1625));
Most cases are resolved in about 10 iterations, however 125, 1250, 12500, etc. take 73 iterations, which I think is the most that any number takes.
Since Array methods may be slow, here's a string version that's about twice as fast:
function trotter(n){
var found = '';
if (n !== 0) {
var i = 1;
while (found.length < 10) {
var d = i * n + '';
var j = d.length;
while (j) {
var c = d[--j];
var idx = found.indexOf(c);
if (idx == -1) found += c;
}
i++;
}
}
return found.length == 10? +d : 'INSOMNIA';
}
[0, // Infinte loop case
125, // Max loop case
1625] // just a number
.forEach(function (n) {
console.log(n + ' : ' + trotter(n));
});
While doing while (found.length) is not optimal, it's typically only computed about 10 times, so not really significant to move outside the condition. An alternative is to include a counter that is incremented each time a digit is added to found, but this isn't really about optimising performance as much as finding something reasonable that works and passes the (undisclosed) tests at codewars.
How can I generate some unique random numbers between 1 and 100 using JavaScript?
For example: To generate 8 unique random numbers and store them to an array, you can simply do this:
var arr = [];
while(arr.length < 8){
var r = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
if(arr.indexOf(r) === -1) arr.push(r);
}
console.log(arr);
Populate an array with the numbers 1 through 100.
Shuffle it.
Take the first 8 elements of the resulting array.
Modern JS Solution using Set (and average case O(n))
const nums = new Set();
while(nums.size !== 8) {
nums.add(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1);
}
console.log([...nums]);
Another approach is to generate an 100 items array with ascending numbers and sort it randomly. This leads actually to a really short and (in my opinion) simple snippet.
const numbers = Array(100).fill().map((_, index) => index + 1);
numbers.sort(() => Math.random() - 0.5);
console.log(numbers.slice(0, 8));
Generate permutation of 100 numbers and then choose serially.
Use Knuth Shuffle(aka the Fisher-Yates shuffle) Algorithm.
JavaScript:
function fisherYates ( myArray,stop_count ) {
var i = myArray.length;
if ( i == 0 ) return false;
int c = 0;
while ( --i ) {
var j = Math.floor( Math.random() * ( i + 1 ) );
var tempi = myArray[i];
var tempj = myArray[j];
myArray[i] = tempj;
myArray[j] = tempi;
// Edited thanks to Frerich Raabe
c++;
if(c == stop_count)return;
}
}
CODE COPIED FROM LINK.
EDIT:
Improved code:
function fisherYates(myArray,nb_picks)
{
for (i = myArray.length-1; i > 1 ; i--)
{
var r = Math.floor(Math.random()*i);
var t = myArray[i];
myArray[i] = myArray[r];
myArray[r] = t;
}
return myArray.slice(0,nb_picks);
}
Potential problem:
Suppose we have array of 100 numbers {e.g. [1,2,3...100]} and we stop swapping after 8 swaps;
then most of the times array will look like {1,2,3,76,5,6,7,8,...numbers here will be shuffled ...10}.
Because every number will be swapped with probability 1/100 so
prob. of swapping first 8 numbers is 8/100 whereas prob. of swapping other 92 is 92/100.
But if we run algorithm for full array then we are sure (almost)every entry is swapped.
Otherwise we face a question : which 8 numbers to choose?
The above techniques are good if you want to avoid a library, but depending if you would be alright with a library, I would suggest checking out Chance for generating random stuff in JavaScript.
Specifically to solve your question, using Chance it's as easy as:
// One line!
var uniques = chance.unique(chance.natural, 8, {min: 1, max: 100});
// Print it out to the document for this snippet so we can see it in action
document.write(JSON.stringify(uniques));
<script src="http://chancejs.com/chance.min.js"></script>
Disclaimer, as the author of Chance, I am a bit biased ;)
To avoid any long and unreliable shuffles, I'd do the following...
Generate an array that contains the number between 1 and 100, in order.
Generate a random number between 1 and 100
Look up the number at this index in the array and store in your results
Remove the elemnt from the array, making it one shorter
Repeat from step 2, but use 99 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 98 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 97 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 96 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 95 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 94 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 93 as the upper limit of the random number
Voila - no repeated numbers.
I may post some actual code later, if anybody is interested.
Edit: It's probably the competitive streak in me but, having seen the post by #Alsciende, I couldn't resist posting the code that I promised.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</title>
<script type="text/javascript" language="Javascript">
function pick(n, min, max){
var values = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) values.push(i--);
var results = [];
var maxIndex = max;
for(i=1; i <= n; i++){
maxIndex--;
var index = Math.floor(maxIndex * Math.random());
results.push(values[index]);
values[index] = values[maxIndex];
}
return results;
}
function go(){
var running = true;
do{
if(!confirm(pick(8, 1, 100).sort(function(a,b){return a - b;}))){
running = false;
}
}while(running)
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<h1>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</h1>
<p><button onclick="go()">Click me</button> to start generating numbers.</p>
<p>When the numbers appear, click OK to generate another set, or Cancel to stop.</p>
</body>
I would do this:
function randomInt(min, max) {
return Math.round(min + Math.random()*(max-min));
}
var index = {}, numbers = [];
for (var i=0; i<8; ++i) {
var number;
do {
number = randomInt(1, 100);
} while (index.hasOwnProperty("_"+number));
index["_"+number] = true;
numbers.push(number);
}
delete index;
This is a very generic function I have written to generate random unique/non-unique integers for an array. Assume the last parameter to be true in this scenario for this answer.
/* Creates an array of random integers between the range specified
len = length of the array you want to generate
min = min value you require
max = max value you require
unique = whether you want unique or not (assume 'true' for this answer)
*/
function _arrayRandom(len, min, max, unique) {
var len = (len) ? len : 10,
min = (min !== undefined) ? min : 1,
max = (max !== undefined) ? max : 100,
unique = (unique) ? unique : false,
toReturn = [], tempObj = {}, i = 0;
if(unique === true) {
for(; i < len; i++) {
var randomInt = Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min));
if(tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] === undefined) {
tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] = randomInt;
toReturn.push(randomInt);
} else {
i--;
}
}
} else {
for(; i < len; i++) {
toReturn.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min)));
}
}
return toReturn;
}
Here the 'tempObj' is a very useful obj since every random number generated will directly check in this tempObj if that key already exists, if not, then we reduce the i by one since we need 1 extra run since the current random number already exists.
In your case, run the following
_arrayRandom(8, 1, 100, true);
That's all.
Shuffling the numbers from 1 to 100 is the right basic strategy, but if you need only 8 shuffled numbers, there's no need to shuffle all 100 numbers.
I don't know Javascript very well, but I believe it's easy to create an array of 100 nulls quickly. Then, for 8 rounds, you swap the n'th element of the array (n starting at 0) with a randomly selected element from n+1 through 99. Of course, any elements not populated yet mean that the element would really have been the original index plus 1, so that's trivial to factor in. When you're done with the 8 rounds, the first 8 elements of your array will have your 8 shuffled numbers.
var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) === -1){arr.push(randomnumber)}
}
document.write(arr);
shorter than other answers I've seen
Implementing this as a generator makes it pretty nice to work with. Note, this implementation differs from ones that require the entire input array to be shuffled first.
This sample function works lazily, giving you 1 random item per iteration up to N items you ask for. This is nice because if you just want 3 items from a list of 1000, you don't have to touch all 1000 items first.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let ys = xs.slice(0);
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield ys.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// example inputs
let items = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];
let numbers = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
// get 3 random items
for (let i of sample(3) (items))
console.log(i); // f g c
// partial application
const lotto = sample(3);
for (let i of lotto(numbers))
console.log(i); // 3 8 7
// shuffle an array
const shuffle = xs => Array.from(sample (Infinity) (xs))
console.log(shuffle(items)) // [b c g f d e a]
I chose to implement sample in a way that does not mutate the input array, but you could easily argue that a mutating implementation is favourable.
For example, the shuffle function might wish to mutate the original input array. Or you might wish to sample from the same input at various times, updating the input each time.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield xs.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// deal :: [Card] -> [Card]
const deal = xs => Array.from(sample (2) (xs));
// setup a deck of cards (13 in this case)
// cards :: [Card]
let cards = 'A234567890JQK'.split('');
// deal 6 players 2 cards each
// players :: [[Card]]
let players = Array.from(Array(6), $=> deal(cards))
console.log(players);
// [K, J], [6, 0], [2, 8], [Q, 7], [5, 4], [9, A]
// `cards` has been mutated. only 1 card remains in the deck
console.log(cards);
// [3]
sample is no longer a pure function because of the array input mutation, but in certain circumstances (demonstrated above) it might make more sense.
Another reason I chose a generator instead of a function that just returns an array is because you may want to continue sampling until some specific condition.
Perhaps I want the first prime number from a list of 1,000,000 random numbers.
"How many should I sample?" – you don't have to specify
"Do I have to find all the primes first and then select a random prime?" – Nope.
Because we're working with a generator, this task is trivial
const randomPrimeNumber = listOfNumbers => {
for (let x of sample(Infinity) (listOfNumbers)) {
if (isPrime(x))
return x;
}
return NaN;
}
This will continuously sample 1 random number at a time, x, check if it's prime, then return x if it is. If the list of numbers is exhausted before a prime is found, NaN is returned.
Note:
This answer was originally shared on another question that was closed as a duplicate of this one. Because it's very different from the other solutions provided here, I've decided to share it here as well
var numbers = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
let a = true,
n;
while(a) {
n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
a = numbers.includes(n);
}
numbers.push(n);
}
console.log(numbers);
Same permutation algorithm as The Machine Charmer, but with a prototyped implementation. Better suited to large number of picks. Uses js 1.7 destructuring assignment if available.
// swaps elements at index i and j in array this
// swapping is easy on js 1.7 (feature detection)
Array.prototype.swap = (function () {
var i=0, j=1;
try { [i,j]=[j,i]; }
catch (e) {}
if(i) {
return function(i,j) {
[this[i],this[j]] = [this[j],this[i]];
return this;
}
} else {
return function(i,j) {
var temp = this[i];
this[i] = this[j];
this[j] = temp;
return this;
}
}
})();
// shuffles array this
Array.prototype.shuffle = function() {
for(var i=this.length; i>1; i--) {
this.swap(i-1, Math.floor(i*Math.random()));
}
return this;
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.shuffle().slice(0,n);
}
pick(8,1,100);
Edit:
An other proposition, better suited to small number of picks, based on belugabob's answer. To guarantee uniqueness, we remove the picked numbers from the array.
// removes n random elements from array this
// and returns them
Array.prototype.pick = function(n) {
if(!n || !this.length) return [];
var i = Math.floor(this.length*Math.random());
return this.splice(i,1).concat(this.pick(n-1));
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.pick(n);
}
pick(8,1,100);
for arrays with holes like this [,2,,4,,6,7,,]
because my problem was to fill these holes. So I modified it as per my need :)
the following modified solution worked for me :)
var arr = [,2,,4,,6,7,,]; //example
while(arr.length < 9){
var randomnumber=Math.floor(Math.random()*9+1);
var found=false;
for(var i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
if(arr[i]==randomnumber){found=true;break;}
}
if(!found)
for(k=0;k<9;k++)
{if(!arr[k]) //if it's empty !!MODIFICATION
{arr[k]=randomnumber; break;}}
}
alert(arr); //outputs on the screen
The best earlier answer is the answer by sje397. You will get as good random numbers as you can get, as quick as possible.
My solution is very similar to his solution. However, sometimes you want the random numbers in random order, and that is why I decided to post an answer. In addition, I provide a general function.
function selectKOutOfN(k, n) {
if (k>n) throw "k>n";
var selection = [];
var sorted = [];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++) {
var rand = Math.floor(Math.random()*(n - i));
for (var j = 0; j < i; j++) {
if (sorted[j]<=rand)
rand++;
else
break;
}
selection.push(rand);
sorted.splice(j, 0, rand);
}
return selection;
}
alert(selectKOutOfN(8, 100));
Here is my ES6 version I cobbled together. I'm sure it can be a little more consolidated.
function randomArray(i, min, max) {
min = Math.ceil(min);
max = Math.floor(max);
let arr = Array.from({length: i}, () => Math.floor(Math.random()* (max - min)) + min);
return arr.sort();
}
let uniqueItems = [...new Set(randomArray(8, 0, 100))]
console.log(uniqueItems);
How about using object properties as a hash table? This way your best scenario is to only randomize 8 times. It would only be effective if you want a small part of the range of numbers. It's also much less memory intensive than Fisher-Yates because you don't have to allocate space for an array.
var ht={}, i=rands=8;
while ( i>0 || keys(ht).length<rands) ht[Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)]=i--;
alert(keys(ht));
I then found out that Object.keys(obj) is an ECMAScript 5 feature so the above is pretty much useless on the internets right now. Fear not, because I made it ECMAScript 3 compatible by adding a keys function like this.
if (typeof keys == "undefined")
{
var keys = function(obj)
{
props=[];
for (k in ht) if (ht.hasOwnProperty(k)) props.push(k);
return props;
}
}
var bombout=0;
var checkArr=[];
var arr=[];
while(arr.length < 8 && bombout<100){
bombout++;
var randomNumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100);
if(typeof checkArr[randomNumber] == "undefined"){
checkArr[randomNumber]=1;
arr.push(randomNumber);
}
}
// untested - hence bombout
if you need more unique you must generate a array(1..100).
var arr=[];
function generateRandoms(){
for(var i=1;i<=100;i++) arr.push(i);
}
function extractUniqueRandom()
{
if (arr.length==0) generateRandoms();
var randIndex=Math.floor(arr.length*Math.random());
var result=arr[randIndex];
arr.splice(randIndex,1);
return result;
}
function extractUniqueRandomArray(n)
{
var resultArr=[];
for(var i=0;i<n;i++) resultArr.push(extractUniqueRandom());
return resultArr;
}
above code is faster:
extractUniqueRandomArray(50)=>
[2, 79, 38, 59, 63, 42, 52, 22, 78, 50, 39, 77, 1, 88, 40, 23, 48, 84, 91, 49, 4, 54, 93, 36, 100, 82, 62, 41, 89, 12, 24, 31, 86, 92, 64, 75, 70, 61, 67, 98, 76, 80, 56, 90, 83, 44, 43, 47, 7, 53]
Adding another better version of same code (accepted answer) with JavaScript 1.6 indexOf function. Do not need to loop thru whole array every time you are checking the duplicate.
var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
var found=false;
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) > -1){found=true;}
if(!found)arr[arr.length]=randomnumber;
}
Older version of Javascript can still use the version at top
PS: Tried suggesting an update to the wiki but it was rejected. I still think it may be useful for others.
This is my personal solution :
<script>
var i, k;
var numbers = new Array();
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
numbers[0]=k;
for (var j=1;j<8;j++){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
while (i < numbers.length){
if (numbers[i] == k){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
}else {i++;}
}
numbers[j]=k;
}
for (var j=0;j<8;j++){
alert (numbers[j]);
}
</script>
It randomly generates 8 unique array values (between 0 and 7), then displays them using an alert box.
function getUniqueRandomNos() {
var indexedArrayOfRandomNo = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
var randNo = Math.random();
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.push([i, randNo]);
}
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.sort(function (arr1, arr2) {
return arr1[1] - arr2[1]
});
var uniqueRandNoArray = [];
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
uniqueRandNoArray.push(indexedArrayOfRandomNo[i][0]);
}
return uniqueRandNoArray;
}
I think this method is different from methods given in most of the answers, so I thought I might add an answer here (though the question was asked 4 years ago).
We generate 100 random numbers, and tag each of them with numbers from 1 to 100. Then we sort these tagged random numbers, and the tags get shuffled randomly. Alternatively, as needed in this question, one could do away with just finding top 8 of the tagged random numbers. Finding top 8 items is cheaper than sorting the whole array.
One must note here, that the sorting algorithm influences this algorithm. If the sorting algorithm used is stable, there is slight bias in favor of smaller numbers. Ideally, we would want the sorting algorithm to be unstable and not even biased towards stability (or instability) to produce an answer with perfectly uniform probability distribution.
This can handle generating upto 20 digit UNIQUE random number
JS
var generatedNumbers = [];
function generateRandomNumber(precision) { // input --> number precision in integer
if (precision <= 20) {
var randomNum = Math.round(Math.random().toFixed(precision) * Math.pow(10, precision));
if (generatedNumbers.indexOf(randomNum) > -1) {
if (generatedNumbers.length == Math.pow(10, precision))
return "Generated all values with this precision";
return generateRandomNumber(precision);
} else {
generatedNumbers.push(randomNum);
return randomNum;
}
} else
return "Number Precision shoould not exceed 20";
}
generateRandomNumber(1);
jsFiddle
This solution uses the hash which is much more performant O(1) than checking if the resides in the array. It has extra safe checks too. Hope it helps.
function uniqueArray(minRange, maxRange, arrayLength) {
var arrayLength = (arrayLength) ? arrayLength : 10
var minRange = (minRange !== undefined) ? minRange : 1
var maxRange = (maxRange !== undefined) ? maxRange : 100
var numberOfItemsInArray = 0
var hash = {}
var array = []
if ( arrayLength > (maxRange - minRange) ) throw new Error('Cannot generate unique array: Array length too high')
while(numberOfItemsInArray < arrayLength){
// var randomNumber = Math.floor(Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange)
// following line used for performance benefits
var randomNumber = (Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange) << 0
if (!hash[randomNumber]) {
hash[randomNumber] = true
array.push(randomNumber)
numberOfItemsInArray++
}
}
return array
}
document.write(uniqueArray(1, 100, 8))
You can also do it with a one liner like this:
[...((add, set) => add(set, add))((set, add) => set.size < 8 ? add(set.add(Math.floor(Math.random()*100) + 1), add) : set, new Set())]
getRandom (min, max) {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min)) + min
}
getNRandom (min, max, n) {
const numbers = []
if (min > max) {
return new Error('Max is gt min')
}
if (min === max) {
return [min]
}
if ((max - min) >= n) {
while (numbers.length < n) {
let rand = this.getRandom(min, max + 1)
if (numbers.indexOf(rand) === -1) {
numbers.push(rand)
}
}
}
if ((max - min) < n) {
for (let i = min; i <= max; i++) {
numbers.push(i)
}
}
return numbers
}
Using a Set is your fastest option. Here is a generic function for getting a unique random that uses a callback generator. Now it's fast and reusable.
// Get a unique 'anything'
let unique = new Set()
function getUnique(generator) {
let number = generator()
while (!unique.add(number)) {
number = generator()
}
return number;
}
// The generator. Return anything, not just numbers.
const between_1_100 = () => 1 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 100)
// Test it
for (var i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
const aNumber = getUnique(between_1_100)
}
// Dump the 'stored numbers'
console.log(Array.from(unique))
This is a implementation of Fisher Yates/Durstenfeld Shuffle, but without actual creation of a array thus reducing space complexity or memory needed, when the pick size is small compared to the number of elements available.
To pick 8 numbers from 100, it is not necessary to create a array of 100 elements.
Assuming a array is created,
From the end of array(100), get random number(rnd) from 1 to 100
Swap 100 and the random number rnd
Repeat step 1 with array(99)
If a array is not created, A hashMap may be used to remember the actual swapped positions. When the second random number generated is equal to the one of the previously generated numbers, the map provides the current value in that position rather than the actual value.
const getRandom_ = (start, end) => {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (end - start + 1)) + start;
};
const getRealValue_ = (map, rnd) => {
if (map.has(rnd)) {
return getRealValue_(map, map.get(rnd));
} else {
return rnd;
}
};
const getRandomNumbers = (n, start, end) => {
const out = new Map();
while (n--) {
const rnd = getRandom_(start, end--);
out.set(getRealValue_(out, rnd), end + 1);
}
return [...out.keys()];
};
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, 100));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, Math.pow(10, 12)));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(800000, 1, Math.pow(10, 15)));
Here is an example of random 5 numbers taken from a range of 0 to 100 (both 0 and 100 included) with no duplication.
let finals = [];
const count = 5; // Considering 5 numbers
const max = 100;
for(let i = 0; i < max; i++){
const rand = Math.round(Math.random() * max);
!finals.includes(rand) && finals.push(rand)
}
finals = finals.slice(0, count)
The typical way to loop x times in JavaScript is:
for (var i = 0; i < x; i++)
doStuff(i);
But I don't want to use the ++ operator or have any mutable variables at all. So is there a way, in ES6, to loop x times another way? I love Ruby's mechanism:
x.times do |i|
do_stuff(i)
end
Anything similar in JavaScript/ES6? I could kind of cheat and make my own generator:
function* times(x) {
for (var i = 0; i < x; i++)
yield i;
}
for (var i of times(5)) {
console.log(i);
}
Of course I'm still using i++. At least it's out of sight :), but I'm hoping there's a better mechanism in ES6.
Using the ES2015 Spread operator:
[...Array(n)].map()
const res = [...Array(10)].map((_, i) => {
return i * 10;
});
// as a one liner
const res = [...Array(10)].map((_, i) => i * 10);
Or if you don't need the result:
[...Array(10)].forEach((_, i) => {
console.log(i);
});
// as a one liner
[...Array(10)].forEach((_, i) => console.log(i));
Or using the ES2015 Array.from operator:
Array.from(...)
const res = Array.from(Array(10)).map((_, i) => {
return i * 10;
});
// as a one liner
const res = Array.from(Array(10)).map((_, i) => i * 10);
Note that if you just need a string repeated you can use String.prototype.repeat.
console.log("0".repeat(10))
// 0000000000
OK!
The code below is written using ES6 syntaxes but could just as easily be written in ES5 or even less. ES6 is not a requirement to create a "mechanism to loop x times"
If you don't need the iterator in the callback, this is the most simple implementation
const times = x => f => {
if (x > 0) {
f()
times (x - 1) (f)
}
}
// use it
times (3) (() => console.log('hi'))
// or define intermediate functions for reuse
let twice = times (2)
// twice the power !
twice (() => console.log('double vision'))
If you do need the iterator, you can use a named inner function with a counter parameter to iterate for you
const times = n => f => {
let iter = i => {
if (i === n) return
f (i)
iter (i + 1)
}
return iter (0)
}
times (3) (i => console.log(i, 'hi'))
Stop reading here if you don't like learning more things ...
But something should feel off about those...
single branch if statements are ugly — what happens on the other branch ?
multiple statements/expressions in the function bodies — are procedure concerns being mixed ?
implicitly returned undefined — indication of impure, side-effecting function
"Isn't there a better way ?"
There is. Let's first revisit our initial implementation
// times :: Int -> (void -> void) -> void
const times = x => f => {
if (x > 0) {
f() // has to be side-effecting function
times (x - 1) (f)
}
}
Sure, it's simple, but notice how we just call f() and don't do anything with it. This really limits the type of function we can repeat multiple times. Even if we have the iterator available, f(i) isn't much more versatile.
What if we start with a better kind of function repetition procedure ? Maybe something that makes better use of input and output.
Generic function repetition
// repeat :: forall a. Int -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
const repeat = n => f => x => {
if (n > 0)
return repeat (n - 1) (f) (f (x))
else
return x
}
// power :: Int -> Int -> Int
const power = base => exp => {
// repeat <exp> times, <base> * <x>, starting with 1
return repeat (exp) (x => base * x) (1)
}
console.log(power (2) (8))
// => 256
Above, we defined a generic repeat function which takes an additional input which is used to start the repeated application of a single function.
// repeat 3 times, the function f, starting with x ...
var result = repeat (3) (f) (x)
// is the same as ...
var result = f(f(f(x)))
Implementing times with repeat
Well this is easy now; almost all of the work is already done.
// repeat :: forall a. Int -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
const repeat = n => f => x => {
if (n > 0)
return repeat (n - 1) (f) (f (x))
else
return x
}
// times :: Int -> (Int -> Int) -> Int
const times = n=> f=>
repeat (n) (i => (f(i), i + 1)) (0)
// use it
times (3) (i => console.log(i, 'hi'))
Since our function takes i as an input and returns i + 1, this effectively works as our iterator which we pass to f each time.
We've fixed our bullet list of issues too
No more ugly single branch if statements
Single-expression bodies indicate nicely separated concerns
No more useless, implicitly returned undefined
JavaScript comma operator, the
In case you're having trouble seeing how the last example is working, it depends on your awareness of one of JavaScript's oldest battle axes; the comma operator – in short, it evaluates expressions from left to right and returns the value of the last evaluated expression
(expr1 :: a, expr2 :: b, expr3 :: c) :: c
In our above example, I'm using
(i => (f(i), i + 1))
which is just a succinct way of writing
(i => { f(i); return i + 1 })
Tail Call Optimisation
As sexy as the recursive implementations are, at this point it would be irresponsible for me to recommend them given that no JavaScript VM I can think of supports proper tail call elimination – babel used to transpile it, but it's been in "broken; will reimplement" status for well over a year.
repeat (1e6) (someFunc) (x)
// => RangeError: Maximum call stack size exceeded
As such, we should revisit our implementation of repeat to make it stack-safe.
The code below does use mutable variables n and x but note that all mutations are localized to the repeat function – no state changes (mutations) are visible from outside of the function
// repeat :: Int -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
const repeat = n => f => x =>
{
let m = 0, acc = x
while (m < n)
(m = m + 1, acc = f (acc))
return acc
}
// inc :: Int -> Int
const inc = x =>
x + 1
console.log (repeat (1e8) (inc) (0))
// 100000000
This is going to have a lot of you saying "but that's not functional !" – I know, just relax. We can implement a Clojure-style loop/recur interface for constant-space looping using pure expressions; none of that while stuff.
Here we abstract while away with our loop function – it looks for a special recur type to keep the loop running. When a non-recur type is encountered, the loop is finished and the result of the computation is returned
const recur = (...args) =>
({ type: recur, args })
const loop = f =>
{
let acc = f ()
while (acc.type === recur)
acc = f (...acc.args)
return acc
}
const repeat = $n => f => x =>
loop ((n = $n, acc = x) =>
n === 0
? acc
: recur (n - 1, f (acc)))
const inc = x =>
x + 1
const fibonacci = $n =>
loop ((n = $n, a = 0, b = 1) =>
n === 0
? a
: recur (n - 1, b, a + b))
console.log (repeat (1e7) (inc) (0)) // 10000000
console.log (fibonacci (100)) // 354224848179262000000
for (let i of Array(100).keys()) {
console.log(i)
}
Here is another good alternative:
Array.from({ length: 3}).map(...);
Preferably, as #Dave Morse pointed out in the comments, you can also get rid of the map call, by using the second parameter of the Array.from function like so:
Array.from({ length: 3 }, () => (...))
I think the best solution is to use let:
for (let i=0; i<100; i++) …
That will create a new (mutable) i variable for each body evaluation and assures that the i is only changed in the increment expression in that loop syntax, not from anywhere else.
I could kind of cheat and make my own generator. At least i++ is out of sight :)
That should be enough, imo. Even in pure languages, all operations (or at least, their interpreters) are built from primitives that use mutation. As long as it is properly scoped, I cannot see what is wrong with that.
You should be fine with
function* times(n) {
for (let i = 0; i < n; i++)
yield i;
}
for (const i of times(5)) {
console.log(i);
}
But I don't want to use the ++ operator or have any mutable variables at all.
Then your only choice is to use recursion. You can define that generator function without a mutable i as well:
function* range(i, n) {
if (i >= n) return;
yield i;
return yield* range(i+1, n);
}
times = (n) => range(0, n);
But that seems overkill to me and might have performance problems (as tail call elimination is not available for return yield*).
I think it is pretty simple:
[...Array(3).keys()]
or
Array(3).fill()
const times = 4;
new Array(times).fill().map(() => console.log('test'));
This snippet will console.log test 4 times.
Answer: 09 December 2015
Personally, I found the accepted answer both concise (good) and terse (bad). Appreciate this statement might be subjective, so please read this answer and see if you agree or disagree
The example given in the question was something like Ruby's:
x.times do |i|
do_stuff(i)
end
Expressing this in JS using below would permit:
times(x)(doStuff(i));
Here is the code:
let times = (n) => {
return (f) => {
Array(n).fill().map((_, i) => f(i));
};
};
That's it!
Simple example usage:
let cheer = () => console.log('Hip hip hooray!');
times(3)(cheer);
//Hip hip hooray!
//Hip hip hooray!
//Hip hip hooray!
Alternatively, following the examples of the accepted answer:
let doStuff = (i) => console.log(i, ' hi'),
once = times(1),
twice = times(2),
thrice = times(3);
once(doStuff);
//0 ' hi'
twice(doStuff);
//0 ' hi'
//1 ' hi'
thrice(doStuff);
//0 ' hi'
//1 ' hi'
//2 ' hi'
Side note - Defining a range function
A similar / related question, that uses fundamentally very similar code constructs, might be is there a convenient Range function in (core) JavaScript, something similar to underscore's range function.
Create an array with n numbers, starting from x
Underscore
_.range(x, x + n)
ES2015
Couple of alternatives:
Array(n).fill().map((_, i) => x + i)
Array.from(Array(n), (_, i) => x + i)
Demo using n = 10, x = 1:
> Array(10).fill().map((_, i) => i + 1)
// [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
> Array.from(Array(10), (_, i) => i + 1)
// [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
In a quick test I ran, with each of the above running a million times each using our solution and doStuff function, the former approach (Array(n).fill()) proved slightly faster.
I am late to the party, but since this question turns up often in search results, I would just like to add a solution that I consider to be the best in terms of readability while not being long (which is ideal for any codebase IMO). It mutates, but I'd make that tradeoff for KISS principles.
let times = 5
while( times-- )
console.log(times)
// logs 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
Array(100).fill().map((_,i)=> console.log(i) );
This version satisifies the OP's requirement for immutability. Also consider using reduce instead of map depending on your use case.
This is also an option if you don't mind a little mutation in your prototype.
Number.prototype.times = function(f) {
return Array(this.valueOf()).fill().map((_,i)=>f(i));
};
Now we can do this
((3).times(i=>console.log(i)));
+1 to arcseldon for the .fill suggestion.
Not something I would teach (or ever use in my code), but here's a codegolf-worthy solution without mutating a variable, no need for ES6:
Array.apply(null, {length: 10}).forEach(function(_, i){
doStuff(i);
})
More of an interesting proof-of-concept thing than a useful answer, really.
If you're willing to use a library, there's also lodash _.times or underscore _.times:
_.times(x, i => {
return doStuff(i)
})
Note this returns an array of the results, so it's really more like this ruby:
x.times.map { |i|
doStuff(i)
}
Afaik, there is no mechanism in ES6 similar to Ruby's times method. But you can avoid mutation by using recursion:
let times = (i, cb, l = i) => {
if (i === 0) return;
cb(l - i);
times(i - 1, cb, l);
}
times(5, i => doStuff(i));
Demo: http://jsbin.com/koyecovano/1/edit?js,console
In the functional paradigm repeat is usually an infinite recursive function. To use it we need either lazy evaluation or continuation passing style.
Lazy evaluated function repetition
const repeat = f => x => [x, () => repeat(f) (f(x))];
const take = n => ([x, f]) => n === 0 ? x : take(n - 1) (f());
console.log(
take(8) (repeat(x => x * 2) (1)) // 256
);
I use a thunk (a function without arguments) to achieve lazy evaluation in Javascript.
Function repetition with continuation passing style
const repeat = f => x => [x, k => k(repeat(f) (f(x)))];
const take = n => ([x, k]) => n === 0 ? x : k(take(n - 1));
console.log(
take(8) (repeat(x => x * 2) (1)) // 256
);
CPS is a little scary at first. However, it always follows the same pattern: The last argument is the continuation (a function), which invokes its own body: k => k(...). Please note that CPS turns the application inside out, i.e. take(8) (repeat...) becomes k(take(8)) (...) where k is the partially applied repeat.
Conclusion
By separating the repetition (repeat) from the termination condition (take) we gain flexibility - separation of concerns up to its bitter end :D
Advantages of this solution
Simplest to read / use (imo)
Return value can be used as a sum, or just ignored
Plain es6 version, also link to TypeScript version of the code
Disadvantages
- Mutation. Being internal only I don't care, maybe some others will not either.
Examples and Code
times(5, 3) // 15 (3+3+3+3+3)
times(5, (i) => Math.pow(2,i) ) // 31 (1+2+4+8+16)
times(5, '<br/>') // <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>
times(3, (i, count) => { // name[0], name[1], name[2]
let n = 'name[' + i + ']'
if (i < count-1)
n += ', '
return n
})
function times(count, callbackOrScalar) {
let type = typeof callbackOrScalar
let sum
if (type === 'number') sum = 0
else if (type === 'string') sum = ''
for (let j = 0; j < count; j++) {
if (type === 'function') {
const callback = callbackOrScalar
const result = callback(j, count)
if (typeof result === 'number' || typeof result === 'string')
sum = sum === undefined ? result : sum + result
}
else if (type === 'number' || type === 'string') {
const scalar = callbackOrScalar
sum = sum === undefined ? scalar : sum + scalar
}
}
return sum
}
TypeScipt version
https://codepen.io/whitneyland/pen/aVjaaE?editors=0011
The simplest way I can think of for creating list/array within range
Array.from(Array(max-min+1), (_, index) => index+min)
I have another alternative
[...Array(30).keys()]
addressing the functional aspect:
function times(n, f) {
var _f = function (f) {
var i;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
f(i);
}
};
return typeof f === 'function' && _f(f) || _f;
}
times(6)(function (v) {
console.log('in parts: ' + v);
});
times(6, function (v) {
console.log('complete: ' + v);
});
Generators? Recursion? Why so much hatin' on mutatin'? ;-)
If it is acceptable as long as we "hide" it, then just accept the use of a unary operator and we can keep things simple:
Number.prototype.times = function(f) { let n=0 ; while(this.valueOf() > n) f(n++) }
Just like in ruby:
> (3).times(console.log)
0
1
2
I wrapped #Tieme s answer with a helper function.
In TypeScript:
export const mapN = <T = any[]>(count: number, fn: (...args: any[]) => T): T[] => [...Array(count)].map((_, i) => fn())
Now you can run:
const arr: string[] = mapN(3, () => 'something')
// returns ['something', 'something', 'something']
I made this:
function repeat(func, times) {
for (var i=0; i<times; i++) {
func(i);
}
}
Usage:
repeat(function(i) {
console.log("Hello, World! - "+i);
}, 5)
/*
Returns:
Hello, World! - 0
Hello, World! - 1
Hello, World! - 2
Hello, World! - 3
Hello, World! - 4
*/
The i variable returns the amount of times it has looped - useful if you need to preload an x amount of images.
I am just going to put this here. If you are looking for a compact function without using Arrays and you have no issue with mutability/immutability :
var g =x=>{/*your code goes here*/x-1>0?g(x-1):null};
For me, this is the easiest answer to understand for many levels of developers
const times = (n, callback) => {
while (n) {
callback();
n--;
}
}
times(10, ()=> console.log('hello'))
It seems to me that the most correct answer (which is debatable) to this question is buried in a comment by Sasha Kondrashov and is also the most concise, using just two characters: "no". There is no functional alternative to a for-loop as nice as the syntax that Ruby has. We might want there to be one, but there just isn't.
It is not explicitly stated in the question, but I would argue any solution to the problem of 'looping N times' should not allocate memory, at least not proportional to N. That criterium would rule out most of the answers that are 'native to javascript'.
Other answers show implementations like the one in Ruby, which is fine, except that the question explicitly asks for a native javascript solution. And there is already a very decent hand-rolled solution in the question, arguably one of the most readable of all.
How can I generate some unique random numbers between 1 and 100 using JavaScript?
For example: To generate 8 unique random numbers and store them to an array, you can simply do this:
var arr = [];
while(arr.length < 8){
var r = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
if(arr.indexOf(r) === -1) arr.push(r);
}
console.log(arr);
Populate an array with the numbers 1 through 100.
Shuffle it.
Take the first 8 elements of the resulting array.
Modern JS Solution using Set (and average case O(n))
const nums = new Set();
while(nums.size !== 8) {
nums.add(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1);
}
console.log([...nums]);
Another approach is to generate an 100 items array with ascending numbers and sort it randomly. This leads actually to a really short and (in my opinion) simple snippet.
const numbers = Array(100).fill().map((_, index) => index + 1);
numbers.sort(() => Math.random() - 0.5);
console.log(numbers.slice(0, 8));
Generate permutation of 100 numbers and then choose serially.
Use Knuth Shuffle(aka the Fisher-Yates shuffle) Algorithm.
JavaScript:
function fisherYates ( myArray,stop_count ) {
var i = myArray.length;
if ( i == 0 ) return false;
int c = 0;
while ( --i ) {
var j = Math.floor( Math.random() * ( i + 1 ) );
var tempi = myArray[i];
var tempj = myArray[j];
myArray[i] = tempj;
myArray[j] = tempi;
// Edited thanks to Frerich Raabe
c++;
if(c == stop_count)return;
}
}
CODE COPIED FROM LINK.
EDIT:
Improved code:
function fisherYates(myArray,nb_picks)
{
for (i = myArray.length-1; i > 1 ; i--)
{
var r = Math.floor(Math.random()*i);
var t = myArray[i];
myArray[i] = myArray[r];
myArray[r] = t;
}
return myArray.slice(0,nb_picks);
}
Potential problem:
Suppose we have array of 100 numbers {e.g. [1,2,3...100]} and we stop swapping after 8 swaps;
then most of the times array will look like {1,2,3,76,5,6,7,8,...numbers here will be shuffled ...10}.
Because every number will be swapped with probability 1/100 so
prob. of swapping first 8 numbers is 8/100 whereas prob. of swapping other 92 is 92/100.
But if we run algorithm for full array then we are sure (almost)every entry is swapped.
Otherwise we face a question : which 8 numbers to choose?
The above techniques are good if you want to avoid a library, but depending if you would be alright with a library, I would suggest checking out Chance for generating random stuff in JavaScript.
Specifically to solve your question, using Chance it's as easy as:
// One line!
var uniques = chance.unique(chance.natural, 8, {min: 1, max: 100});
// Print it out to the document for this snippet so we can see it in action
document.write(JSON.stringify(uniques));
<script src="http://chancejs.com/chance.min.js"></script>
Disclaimer, as the author of Chance, I am a bit biased ;)
To avoid any long and unreliable shuffles, I'd do the following...
Generate an array that contains the number between 1 and 100, in order.
Generate a random number between 1 and 100
Look up the number at this index in the array and store in your results
Remove the elemnt from the array, making it one shorter
Repeat from step 2, but use 99 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 98 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 97 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 96 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 95 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 94 as the upper limit of the random number
Repeat from step 2, but use 93 as the upper limit of the random number
Voila - no repeated numbers.
I may post some actual code later, if anybody is interested.
Edit: It's probably the competitive streak in me but, having seen the post by #Alsciende, I couldn't resist posting the code that I promised.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</title>
<script type="text/javascript" language="Javascript">
function pick(n, min, max){
var values = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) values.push(i--);
var results = [];
var maxIndex = max;
for(i=1; i <= n; i++){
maxIndex--;
var index = Math.floor(maxIndex * Math.random());
results.push(values[index]);
values[index] = values[maxIndex];
}
return results;
}
function go(){
var running = true;
do{
if(!confirm(pick(8, 1, 100).sort(function(a,b){return a - b;}))){
running = false;
}
}while(running)
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<h1>8 unique random number between 1 and 100</h1>
<p><button onclick="go()">Click me</button> to start generating numbers.</p>
<p>When the numbers appear, click OK to generate another set, or Cancel to stop.</p>
</body>
I would do this:
function randomInt(min, max) {
return Math.round(min + Math.random()*(max-min));
}
var index = {}, numbers = [];
for (var i=0; i<8; ++i) {
var number;
do {
number = randomInt(1, 100);
} while (index.hasOwnProperty("_"+number));
index["_"+number] = true;
numbers.push(number);
}
delete index;
This is a very generic function I have written to generate random unique/non-unique integers for an array. Assume the last parameter to be true in this scenario for this answer.
/* Creates an array of random integers between the range specified
len = length of the array you want to generate
min = min value you require
max = max value you require
unique = whether you want unique or not (assume 'true' for this answer)
*/
function _arrayRandom(len, min, max, unique) {
var len = (len) ? len : 10,
min = (min !== undefined) ? min : 1,
max = (max !== undefined) ? max : 100,
unique = (unique) ? unique : false,
toReturn = [], tempObj = {}, i = 0;
if(unique === true) {
for(; i < len; i++) {
var randomInt = Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min));
if(tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] === undefined) {
tempObj['key_'+ randomInt] = randomInt;
toReturn.push(randomInt);
} else {
i--;
}
}
} else {
for(; i < len; i++) {
toReturn.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * ((max - min) + min)));
}
}
return toReturn;
}
Here the 'tempObj' is a very useful obj since every random number generated will directly check in this tempObj if that key already exists, if not, then we reduce the i by one since we need 1 extra run since the current random number already exists.
In your case, run the following
_arrayRandom(8, 1, 100, true);
That's all.
Shuffling the numbers from 1 to 100 is the right basic strategy, but if you need only 8 shuffled numbers, there's no need to shuffle all 100 numbers.
I don't know Javascript very well, but I believe it's easy to create an array of 100 nulls quickly. Then, for 8 rounds, you swap the n'th element of the array (n starting at 0) with a randomly selected element from n+1 through 99. Of course, any elements not populated yet mean that the element would really have been the original index plus 1, so that's trivial to factor in. When you're done with the 8 rounds, the first 8 elements of your array will have your 8 shuffled numbers.
var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) === -1){arr.push(randomnumber)}
}
document.write(arr);
shorter than other answers I've seen
Implementing this as a generator makes it pretty nice to work with. Note, this implementation differs from ones that require the entire input array to be shuffled first.
This sample function works lazily, giving you 1 random item per iteration up to N items you ask for. This is nice because if you just want 3 items from a list of 1000, you don't have to touch all 1000 items first.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let ys = xs.slice(0);
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield ys.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// example inputs
let items = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g'];
let numbers = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
// get 3 random items
for (let i of sample(3) (items))
console.log(i); // f g c
// partial application
const lotto = sample(3);
for (let i of lotto(numbers))
console.log(i); // 3 8 7
// shuffle an array
const shuffle = xs => Array.from(sample (Infinity) (xs))
console.log(shuffle(items)) // [b c g f d e a]
I chose to implement sample in a way that does not mutate the input array, but you could easily argue that a mutating implementation is favourable.
For example, the shuffle function might wish to mutate the original input array. Or you might wish to sample from the same input at various times, updating the input each time.
// sample :: Integer -> [a] -> [a]
const sample = n => function* (xs) {
let len = xs.length;
while (n > 0 && len > 0) {
let i = (Math.random() * len) >> 0;
yield xs.splice(i,1)[0];
n--; len--;
}
}
// deal :: [Card] -> [Card]
const deal = xs => Array.from(sample (2) (xs));
// setup a deck of cards (13 in this case)
// cards :: [Card]
let cards = 'A234567890JQK'.split('');
// deal 6 players 2 cards each
// players :: [[Card]]
let players = Array.from(Array(6), $=> deal(cards))
console.log(players);
// [K, J], [6, 0], [2, 8], [Q, 7], [5, 4], [9, A]
// `cards` has been mutated. only 1 card remains in the deck
console.log(cards);
// [3]
sample is no longer a pure function because of the array input mutation, but in certain circumstances (demonstrated above) it might make more sense.
Another reason I chose a generator instead of a function that just returns an array is because you may want to continue sampling until some specific condition.
Perhaps I want the first prime number from a list of 1,000,000 random numbers.
"How many should I sample?" – you don't have to specify
"Do I have to find all the primes first and then select a random prime?" – Nope.
Because we're working with a generator, this task is trivial
const randomPrimeNumber = listOfNumbers => {
for (let x of sample(Infinity) (listOfNumbers)) {
if (isPrime(x))
return x;
}
return NaN;
}
This will continuously sample 1 random number at a time, x, check if it's prime, then return x if it is. If the list of numbers is exhausted before a prime is found, NaN is returned.
Note:
This answer was originally shared on another question that was closed as a duplicate of this one. Because it's very different from the other solutions provided here, I've decided to share it here as well
var numbers = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
let a = true,
n;
while(a) {
n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) + 1;
a = numbers.includes(n);
}
numbers.push(n);
}
console.log(numbers);
Same permutation algorithm as The Machine Charmer, but with a prototyped implementation. Better suited to large number of picks. Uses js 1.7 destructuring assignment if available.
// swaps elements at index i and j in array this
// swapping is easy on js 1.7 (feature detection)
Array.prototype.swap = (function () {
var i=0, j=1;
try { [i,j]=[j,i]; }
catch (e) {}
if(i) {
return function(i,j) {
[this[i],this[j]] = [this[j],this[i]];
return this;
}
} else {
return function(i,j) {
var temp = this[i];
this[i] = this[j];
this[j] = temp;
return this;
}
}
})();
// shuffles array this
Array.prototype.shuffle = function() {
for(var i=this.length; i>1; i--) {
this.swap(i-1, Math.floor(i*Math.random()));
}
return this;
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.shuffle().slice(0,n);
}
pick(8,1,100);
Edit:
An other proposition, better suited to small number of picks, based on belugabob's answer. To guarantee uniqueness, we remove the picked numbers from the array.
// removes n random elements from array this
// and returns them
Array.prototype.pick = function(n) {
if(!n || !this.length) return [];
var i = Math.floor(this.length*Math.random());
return this.splice(i,1).concat(this.pick(n-1));
}
// returns n unique random numbers between min and max
function pick(n, min, max) {
var a = [], i = max;
while(i >= min) a.push(i--);
return a.pick(n);
}
pick(8,1,100);
for arrays with holes like this [,2,,4,,6,7,,]
because my problem was to fill these holes. So I modified it as per my need :)
the following modified solution worked for me :)
var arr = [,2,,4,,6,7,,]; //example
while(arr.length < 9){
var randomnumber=Math.floor(Math.random()*9+1);
var found=false;
for(var i=0;i<arr.length;i++){
if(arr[i]==randomnumber){found=true;break;}
}
if(!found)
for(k=0;k<9;k++)
{if(!arr[k]) //if it's empty !!MODIFICATION
{arr[k]=randomnumber; break;}}
}
alert(arr); //outputs on the screen
The best earlier answer is the answer by sje397. You will get as good random numbers as you can get, as quick as possible.
My solution is very similar to his solution. However, sometimes you want the random numbers in random order, and that is why I decided to post an answer. In addition, I provide a general function.
function selectKOutOfN(k, n) {
if (k>n) throw "k>n";
var selection = [];
var sorted = [];
for (var i = 0; i < k; i++) {
var rand = Math.floor(Math.random()*(n - i));
for (var j = 0; j < i; j++) {
if (sorted[j]<=rand)
rand++;
else
break;
}
selection.push(rand);
sorted.splice(j, 0, rand);
}
return selection;
}
alert(selectKOutOfN(8, 100));
Here is my ES6 version I cobbled together. I'm sure it can be a little more consolidated.
function randomArray(i, min, max) {
min = Math.ceil(min);
max = Math.floor(max);
let arr = Array.from({length: i}, () => Math.floor(Math.random()* (max - min)) + min);
return arr.sort();
}
let uniqueItems = [...new Set(randomArray(8, 0, 100))]
console.log(uniqueItems);
How about using object properties as a hash table? This way your best scenario is to only randomize 8 times. It would only be effective if you want a small part of the range of numbers. It's also much less memory intensive than Fisher-Yates because you don't have to allocate space for an array.
var ht={}, i=rands=8;
while ( i>0 || keys(ht).length<rands) ht[Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)]=i--;
alert(keys(ht));
I then found out that Object.keys(obj) is an ECMAScript 5 feature so the above is pretty much useless on the internets right now. Fear not, because I made it ECMAScript 3 compatible by adding a keys function like this.
if (typeof keys == "undefined")
{
var keys = function(obj)
{
props=[];
for (k in ht) if (ht.hasOwnProperty(k)) props.push(k);
return props;
}
}
var bombout=0;
var checkArr=[];
var arr=[];
while(arr.length < 8 && bombout<100){
bombout++;
var randomNumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100);
if(typeof checkArr[randomNumber] == "undefined"){
checkArr[randomNumber]=1;
arr.push(randomNumber);
}
}
// untested - hence bombout
if you need more unique you must generate a array(1..100).
var arr=[];
function generateRandoms(){
for(var i=1;i<=100;i++) arr.push(i);
}
function extractUniqueRandom()
{
if (arr.length==0) generateRandoms();
var randIndex=Math.floor(arr.length*Math.random());
var result=arr[randIndex];
arr.splice(randIndex,1);
return result;
}
function extractUniqueRandomArray(n)
{
var resultArr=[];
for(var i=0;i<n;i++) resultArr.push(extractUniqueRandom());
return resultArr;
}
above code is faster:
extractUniqueRandomArray(50)=>
[2, 79, 38, 59, 63, 42, 52, 22, 78, 50, 39, 77, 1, 88, 40, 23, 48, 84, 91, 49, 4, 54, 93, 36, 100, 82, 62, 41, 89, 12, 24, 31, 86, 92, 64, 75, 70, 61, 67, 98, 76, 80, 56, 90, 83, 44, 43, 47, 7, 53]
Adding another better version of same code (accepted answer) with JavaScript 1.6 indexOf function. Do not need to loop thru whole array every time you are checking the duplicate.
var arr = []
while(arr.length < 8){
var randomnumber=Math.ceil(Math.random()*100)
var found=false;
if(arr.indexOf(randomnumber) > -1){found=true;}
if(!found)arr[arr.length]=randomnumber;
}
Older version of Javascript can still use the version at top
PS: Tried suggesting an update to the wiki but it was rejected. I still think it may be useful for others.
This is my personal solution :
<script>
var i, k;
var numbers = new Array();
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
numbers[0]=k;
for (var j=1;j<8;j++){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
while (i < numbers.length){
if (numbers[i] == k){
k = Math.floor((Math.random()*8));
i=0;
}else {i++;}
}
numbers[j]=k;
}
for (var j=0;j<8;j++){
alert (numbers[j]);
}
</script>
It randomly generates 8 unique array values (between 0 and 7), then displays them using an alert box.
function getUniqueRandomNos() {
var indexedArrayOfRandomNo = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
var randNo = Math.random();
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.push([i, randNo]);
}
indexedArrayOfRandomNo.sort(function (arr1, arr2) {
return arr1[1] - arr2[1]
});
var uniqueRandNoArray = [];
for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
uniqueRandNoArray.push(indexedArrayOfRandomNo[i][0]);
}
return uniqueRandNoArray;
}
I think this method is different from methods given in most of the answers, so I thought I might add an answer here (though the question was asked 4 years ago).
We generate 100 random numbers, and tag each of them with numbers from 1 to 100. Then we sort these tagged random numbers, and the tags get shuffled randomly. Alternatively, as needed in this question, one could do away with just finding top 8 of the tagged random numbers. Finding top 8 items is cheaper than sorting the whole array.
One must note here, that the sorting algorithm influences this algorithm. If the sorting algorithm used is stable, there is slight bias in favor of smaller numbers. Ideally, we would want the sorting algorithm to be unstable and not even biased towards stability (or instability) to produce an answer with perfectly uniform probability distribution.
This can handle generating upto 20 digit UNIQUE random number
JS
var generatedNumbers = [];
function generateRandomNumber(precision) { // input --> number precision in integer
if (precision <= 20) {
var randomNum = Math.round(Math.random().toFixed(precision) * Math.pow(10, precision));
if (generatedNumbers.indexOf(randomNum) > -1) {
if (generatedNumbers.length == Math.pow(10, precision))
return "Generated all values with this precision";
return generateRandomNumber(precision);
} else {
generatedNumbers.push(randomNum);
return randomNum;
}
} else
return "Number Precision shoould not exceed 20";
}
generateRandomNumber(1);
jsFiddle
This solution uses the hash which is much more performant O(1) than checking if the resides in the array. It has extra safe checks too. Hope it helps.
function uniqueArray(minRange, maxRange, arrayLength) {
var arrayLength = (arrayLength) ? arrayLength : 10
var minRange = (minRange !== undefined) ? minRange : 1
var maxRange = (maxRange !== undefined) ? maxRange : 100
var numberOfItemsInArray = 0
var hash = {}
var array = []
if ( arrayLength > (maxRange - minRange) ) throw new Error('Cannot generate unique array: Array length too high')
while(numberOfItemsInArray < arrayLength){
// var randomNumber = Math.floor(Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange)
// following line used for performance benefits
var randomNumber = (Math.random() * (maxRange - minRange + 1) + minRange) << 0
if (!hash[randomNumber]) {
hash[randomNumber] = true
array.push(randomNumber)
numberOfItemsInArray++
}
}
return array
}
document.write(uniqueArray(1, 100, 8))
You can also do it with a one liner like this:
[...((add, set) => add(set, add))((set, add) => set.size < 8 ? add(set.add(Math.floor(Math.random()*100) + 1), add) : set, new Set())]
getRandom (min, max) {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min)) + min
}
getNRandom (min, max, n) {
const numbers = []
if (min > max) {
return new Error('Max is gt min')
}
if (min === max) {
return [min]
}
if ((max - min) >= n) {
while (numbers.length < n) {
let rand = this.getRandom(min, max + 1)
if (numbers.indexOf(rand) === -1) {
numbers.push(rand)
}
}
}
if ((max - min) < n) {
for (let i = min; i <= max; i++) {
numbers.push(i)
}
}
return numbers
}
Using a Set is your fastest option. Here is a generic function for getting a unique random that uses a callback generator. Now it's fast and reusable.
// Get a unique 'anything'
let unique = new Set()
function getUnique(generator) {
let number = generator()
while (!unique.add(number)) {
number = generator()
}
return number;
}
// The generator. Return anything, not just numbers.
const between_1_100 = () => 1 + Math.floor(Math.random() * 100)
// Test it
for (var i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
const aNumber = getUnique(between_1_100)
}
// Dump the 'stored numbers'
console.log(Array.from(unique))
This is a implementation of Fisher Yates/Durstenfeld Shuffle, but without actual creation of a array thus reducing space complexity or memory needed, when the pick size is small compared to the number of elements available.
To pick 8 numbers from 100, it is not necessary to create a array of 100 elements.
Assuming a array is created,
From the end of array(100), get random number(rnd) from 1 to 100
Swap 100 and the random number rnd
Repeat step 1 with array(99)
If a array is not created, A hashMap may be used to remember the actual swapped positions. When the second random number generated is equal to the one of the previously generated numbers, the map provides the current value in that position rather than the actual value.
const getRandom_ = (start, end) => {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (end - start + 1)) + start;
};
const getRealValue_ = (map, rnd) => {
if (map.has(rnd)) {
return getRealValue_(map, map.get(rnd));
} else {
return rnd;
}
};
const getRandomNumbers = (n, start, end) => {
const out = new Map();
while (n--) {
const rnd = getRandom_(start, end--);
out.set(getRealValue_(out, rnd), end + 1);
}
return [...out.keys()];
};
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, 100));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(8, 1, Math.pow(10, 12)));
console.info(getRandomNumbers(800000, 1, Math.pow(10, 15)));
Here is an example of random 5 numbers taken from a range of 0 to 100 (both 0 and 100 included) with no duplication.
let finals = [];
const count = 5; // Considering 5 numbers
const max = 100;
for(let i = 0; i < max; i++){
const rand = Math.round(Math.random() * max);
!finals.includes(rand) && finals.push(rand)
}
finals = finals.slice(0, count)