We Keep Coding

Three Sum Algorithm can't find bug

I'm trying to solve Three Sum (find all triplets that add to 0 within an array avoiding duplicate cases) but currently running into a bug I can't seem to find.
When the input is [-1,0,1,2,-1,-4], it works fine.
With this input however, [-1,0,1,2,-1,-4,-2,-3,3,0,4] I'm getting this array as output:
[[-1,-1,2],[-1,0,1],[-2,0,2],[-3,0,3],[-3,1,2],[-4,0,4],[-4,1,3]].
The correct output should be
[[-4,0,4],[-4,1,3],[-3,-1,4],[-3,0,3],[-3,1,2],[-2,-1,3],[-2,0,2],[-1,-1,2],[-1,0,1]]
So for some reasons my solution is omitting the triplets [-3,-1,4] and [-2,-1,3].
var threeSum = function (nums) {
const sorted = nums.sort()
const output = []
for (let i = 0; i < sorted.length - 2; i++)
if (i === 0 || (i > 0 && sorted[i] !== sorted[i - 1])) {
let lower = i + 1
let higher = sorted.length - 1
while (lower < higher) {
const currentSum = sorted[i] + sorted[lower] + sorted[higher];
if (currentSum === 0) {
output.push([sorted[i], sorted[lower], sorted[higher]])
while (sorted[lower] === sorted[lower + 1]) lower++
while (sorted[higher] === sorted[higher - 1]) higher--
lower++
higher--
}
else if (currentSum < 0) {
lower++
} else {
higher--
}
}
}
}
return output
};

By default Javascript sorts via string comparison.
You want to sort numerically so use
nums.sort(function(a, b){return a - b});

In a Minimax algorithm, what happens if an AI doesn't reach a terminal state before hitting depth 0?

I have been coding a simple Minimax algorithm and stumbled upon a problem I'm not able to solve. The algorithm first determines if the game is over (either via a draw or win of either player) OR if the depth hits == 0 (depth decreases by 1 in each recursive call).
The problem I'm having is the algorithm usually hits depth 0 really quickly (as the initial depths are low). However, as pointed out by the pseudocode I have been given, if that happens, the algorithm should return a static evaluation of the current board. In my case, that board is in a state of CONTINUE (meaning there are no game over conditions met).
I have my evaluation algorithm set so it returns -1 if circle wins, 0 for a draw and 1 for cross win. What should I return if the game isn't over yet at depth==0 to not mess up the maximizing/minimizing of the algorithm?
The evaluation code:
int getGameResult() {
//check for possible win
//check vertical lines
for (int i = 0; i <= BOARD_SIZE - 4; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE; j++) {
//if circle has 4 verticals
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i + 1][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i + 2][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i + 3][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE) {
return -1;
}
//if cross has 4 verticals
else if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i + 1][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i + 2][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i + 3][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS) {
return 1;
}
}
}
//check horizontal lines
for (int i = 0; i < BOARD_SIZE; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j <= BOARD_SIZE - 4; j++) {
//if circle has 4 horizontals
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i][j + 1] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i][j + 2] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i][j + 3] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE) {
return -1;
}
//if cross has 4 horizontals
else if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i][j + 1] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i][j + 2] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i][j + 3] == FieldStatus::CROSS) {
return 1;
}
}
}
//check diagonals
//right diagonals
for (int i = 0; i < BOARD_SIZE - 3; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE - 3; j++) {
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i + 1][j + 1] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i + 2][j + 2] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i + 3][j + 3] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE) {
return -1;
}
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i + 1][j + 1] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i + 2][j + 2] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i + 3][j + 3] == FieldStatus::CROSS) {
return 1;
}
}
}
//left diagonals
for (int i = BOARD_SIZE - 1; i > BOARD_SIZE - 2; i--) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE - 3; j++) {
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i - 1][j + 1] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i - 2][j + 2] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE
&& board[i - 3][j + 3] == FieldStatus::CIRCLE) {
return -1;
}
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i - 1][j + 1] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i - 2][j + 2] == FieldStatus::CROSS
&& board[i - 3][j + 3] == FieldStatus::CROSS) {
return 1;
}
}
}
//check for draw
for (int i = 0; i < BOARD_SIZE; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE; j++) {
if (board[i][j] != FieldStatus::EMPTY) {
return -5; //!! This is the part that confuses me
}
}
}
return 0;
}
The minimax code (isCross basically means isMaximizer):
int minimax(int depth, bool isCross) {
//cross maximizes, circle minimizes
//check if game is done
if (depth == 0 && isGameOver()) {
int result = getGameResult();
if (result == -5 && isCross) {
return 1;
}
else if (result == -5) {
result = -1;
}
return result;
}
//if maximizing
if (isCross) {
int bestMoveScore = INT_MIN;
for (int i = 0; i < BOARD_SIZE; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE; j++) {
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::EMPTY) {
board[i][j] = FieldStatus::CROSS;
int fieldScore = minimax(depth - 1, false);
board[i][j] = FieldStatus::EMPTY;
if (fieldScore > bestMoveScore) {
bestMoveScore = fieldScore;
}
}
}
}
return bestMoveScore;
}
else { //minimize
int bestMoveScore = INT_MAX;
for (int i = 0; i < BOARD_SIZE; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE; j++) {
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::EMPTY) {
board[i][j] = FieldStatus::CIRCLE;
int fieldScore = minimax(depth - 1, true);
board[i][j] = FieldStatus::EMPTY;
if (fieldScore < bestMoveScore) {
bestMoveScore = fieldScore;
}
}
}
}
return bestMoveScore;
}
}

First there are some issues in your code:
You write (correctly) that a draw is evaluated as 0, but the code doesn't do that. The relevant code is:
//check for draw
for (int i = 0; i < BOARD_SIZE; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < BOARD_SIZE; j++) {
if (board[i][j] != FieldStatus::EMPTY) {
return -5; //!! This is the part that confuses me
}
}
}
return 0;
The final return 0 can only be executed when the if condition is never true, which -- if we look closely -- would mean all cells are empty! This is obviously wrong. The if condition should be:
if (board[i][j] == FieldStatus::EMPTY) {
and now -5 will be the return value whenever getGameResult is called in a state where the game is not over yet. It signifies something like "I have no idea what the value is".
As you have a getGameResult function, which will correctly identify whether the game is over or not, you don't really need gameOver as a separate function. If getGameResult returns -5, then the game is not over, and in all other cases (-1, 0, or 1) it is over.
Your code does not always check whether the game is over
int minimax(int depth, bool isCross) {
//cross maximizes, circle minimizes
//check if game is done
if (depth == 0 && isGameOver()) {
int result = getGameResult();
This code will only detect whether the game is over when depth is 0, but it could well be that the game ends earlier. So the condition depth == 0 should not be placed here, but be put as a separate case after having dealt with the game-over situation:
int result = getGameResult();
if (result != -5) { // Game is over!
return result;
}
// Game is not over yet... check if we should search deeper
if (depth == 0) { // We should stop searching.
return evaluate(); // Use some heuristic to give an estimated value
}
So now we get to your core question: how to implement evaluate (used in above code block)
For the game at hand, you could use the following characteristics to get an estimated value for the game:
Count the number of 4-in-a-row that are potentially still possible for a player. For a line of 4 cells to count in that sum, it should not contain any moves of the opponent. So they should either be empty or have the player's own symbol(s). If that is true for a line of 4 cells, it should contribute as 1 to a total sum that is calculated for all lines of 4 cells. Calculate this sum from the viewpoint of each player separately.
To improve, if among those potential 4-in-a-rows there are some that have 3 occupied by the player, then give them more weight (like count them as 3 instead of just as 1 in the sum). Similarly apply a coefficient for those that have 2 cells occupied.
Given the two sums that are calculated like that, calculate the difference. If positive, that means it is good for the X-player, else it is good for the O-player.
Finally convert this number (e.g. by dividing by 1000) so it is guaranteed to be between (-1, 1) and distinct from the values for a win/loss. It may be better to work with integers, so then use the values 1000 and -1000 for win and loss, instead of 1 and -1.

If you cannot evaluate the tree far enough to get to the end of the game, then you need to have some function which can produce an approximate score for an incomplete gamestate. So if 1 means cross wins, then numbers between 0 and 1 would indicate they're increasingly likely to win, and numbers between 0 and -1 indicate they're likely to lose. The details of this evaluation function entirely depends on the game you're playing, and it may not be obvious what the "right" function to do this is.
In chess for example, here's some functions you could write to try to approximate who's winning:
Add up the number of pieces player A has, and subtract the number of pieces player B has
Same as #1, but weight the pieces relative to how good they generally are (queens worth more than pawns, for example)
Same as #2, but write some complicated logic which looks at the arrangement of the pieces to try to guess whether that arrangement is good or not. Maybe it would give a bonus to pieces that have many moves available to them as opposed to being trapped behind other pieces, or would add a bonus when pawns are arranged diagonally to support eachother.
Same as #3, but use a neural network and billions of training games to generate the complicated logic for you.
What's a good evaluation function for your game? I'm afraid I don't really have a good answer for you. Figuring that out requires some expertise in the game, and very likely some experimentation. To start, maybe you could do something which figures out which pieces are "dead" (ie, they're surrounded such that they can not contribute to making a line of 4), and then sums up the remaining pieces.

Greatest Prime Factor

I'm trying to complete an algorithm challenge to find the largest prime factor of 600851475143. I'm not necessarily asking for the answer. Just trying to figure out why this code isn't working. Why does it return 'undefined' instead of a number?
let isPrime = n => {
let div = n - 1;
while (div > 1) {
if (n % div == 0) return false;
div--;
}
return true;
};
let primeFactor = x => {
for (let i = Math.floor(x / 2); i > 1; i--) {
if (x % i == 0 && isPrime(i) == true) {
return i;
}
}
};
console.log(primeFactor(35)); // 7
console.log(primeFactor(13195)); // 29
console.log(primeFactor(600851475143)); // undefined

The problem is not your algorithm it is perfectly valid, check the below slightly modified algorithm, all I've done is replaced your starting point Math.floor(x/2) with a parameter that you can choose:
let isPrime = n => {
let div = n - 1;
while (div > 1) {
if (n % div == 0) return false;
div--;
}
return true;
};
function primeFactor(x, n){
for (let i = n; i > 1; i--) {
if (x % i == 0 && isPrime(i) == true) {
return i;
}
}
}
console.log(primeFactor(35, 35));
console.log(primeFactor(13195, 13195));
console.log(primeFactor(600851475143, 100000))
Using the above you'll get an answer that proves your implementation works, but the loop is too big to do the entire thing(i.e. from Math.floor(600851475143/2)). Say your computer can do 500million loops per second, going through every one from 300,425,737,571 down to 1 would take 167 hours, even at 5 billion loops per second it would take 16 and a half hours. Your method is extremely inefficient but will return the correct answer. The reason you're not getting an answer on JSBin is more likely to do with browser/service limitations.
Spoilers on more efficient solution below
The following implementation uses a prime sieve(Sieve of Eratosthenes) in order to generate any list of primes requested and then checks if they fully factor into the given number, as long as you use a large enough list of primes, this will work exactly as intended. it should be noted that because it generates a large list of primes it can take some time if ran incorrectly, a single list of primes should be generated and used for all calls below, and the cached list of primes will pay off eventually by having to perform less calculations later on:
function genPrimes(n){
primes = new Uint32Array(n+1);
primes.fill(1)
for(var i = 2; i < Math.sqrt(n); i++){
if(primes[i]){
for(var j = 2*i; j < n; j+=i){
primes[j] = 0;
}
}
}
primeVals = []
for(var i = 2; i < primes.length; i++){
if(primes[i]){
primeVals.push(i);
}
}
return primeVals;
}
function primeFactor(x, primes){
var c = x < primes.length ? x : primes.length
for (var i = c; i > 1; i--) {
if(x % primes[i] == 0){
return primes[i];
}
}
}
primes = genPrimes(15487457);
console.log(primeFactor(35, primes));
console.log(primeFactor(13195, primes));
console.log(primeFactor(600851475143, primes));
console.log(primeFactor(30974914,primes));

let primeFactor = x => {
if (x === 1 || x === 2) {
return x;
}
while (x % 2 === 0) {
x /= 2;
}
if (x === 1) {
return 2;
}
let max = 0;
for (let i = 3; i <= Math.sqrt(x); i += 2) {
while (x % i === 0) {
x /= i;
max = Math.max(i, max);
}
}
if (x > 2) {
max = Math.max(x, max);
}
return max;
};
console.log(primeFactor(35));
console.log(primeFactor(13195));
console.log(primeFactor(27));
console.log(primeFactor(1024));
console.log(primeFactor(30974914));
console.log(primeFactor(600851475143));
Optimizations
Dividing the number by 2 until it's odd since no even number is prime.
The iteration increment is 2 rather than 1 to skip all even numbers.
The iteration stops at sqrt(x). The explanation for that is here.

Improve Code to find Prime Numbers within 1-100 [duplicate]

Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
In Javascript how would i find prime numbers between 0 - 100? i have thought about it, and i am not sure how to find them. i thought about doing x % x but i found the obvious problem with that.
this is what i have so far:
but unfortunately it is the worst code ever.
var prime = function (){
var num;
for (num = 0; num < 101; num++){
if (num % 2 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 3 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 4=== 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 5 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 6 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 7 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 8 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 9 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 10 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 11 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 12 === 0){
break;
}
else {
return num;
}
}
};
console.log(prime());

Here's an example of a sieve implementation in JavaScript:
function getPrimes(max) {
var sieve = [], i, j, primes = [];
for (i = 2; i <= max; ++i) {
if (!sieve[i]) {
// i has not been marked -- it is prime
primes.push(i);
for (j = i << 1; j <= max; j += i) {
sieve[j] = true;
}
}
}
return primes;
}
Then getPrimes(100) will return an array of all primes between 2 and 100 (inclusive). Of course, due to memory constraints, you can't use this with large arguments.
A Java implementation would look very similar.

Here's how I solved it. Rewrote it from Java to JavaScript, so excuse me if there's a syntax error.
function isPrime (n)
{
if (n < 2) return false;
/**
* An integer is prime if it is not divisible by any prime less than or equal to its square root
**/
var q = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(n));
for (var i = 2; i <= q; i++)
{
if (n % i == 0)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
A number, n, is a prime if it isn't divisible by any other number other than by 1 and itself. Also, it's sufficient to check the numbers [2, sqrt(n)].

Here is the live demo of this script: http://jsfiddle.net/K2QJp/
First, make a function that will test if a single number is prime or not. If you want to extend the Number object you may, but I decided to just keep the code as simple as possible.
function isPrime(num) {
if(num < 2) return false;
for (var i = 2; i < num; i++) {
if(num%i==0)
return false;
}
return true;
}
This script goes through every number between 2 and 1 less than the number and tests if there is any number in which there is no remainder if you divide the number by the increment. If there is any without a remainder, it is not prime. If the number is less than 2, it is not prime. Otherwise, it is prime.
Then make a for loop to loop through the numbers 0 to 100 and test each number with that function. If it is prime, output the number to the log.
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){
if(isPrime(i)) console.log(i);
}

Whatever the language, one of the best and most accessible ways of finding primes within a range is using a sieve.
Not going to give you code, but this is a good starting point.
For a small range, such as yours, the most efficient would be pre-computing the numbers.

I have slightly modified the Sieve of Sundaram algorithm to cut the unnecessary iterations and it seems to be very fast.
This algorithm is actually two times faster than the most accepted #Ted Hopp's solution under this topic. Solving the 78498 primes between 0 - 1M takes like 20~25 msec in Chrome 55 and < 90 msec in FF 50.1. Also #vitaly-t's get next prime algorithm looks interesting but also results much slower.
This is the core algorithm. One could apply segmentation and threading to get superb results.
"use strict";
function primeSieve(n){
var a = Array(n = n/2),
t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*n)-2)/4,
u = 0,
r = [];
for(var i = 1; i <= t; i++){
u = (n-i)/(1+2*i);
for(var j = i; j <= u; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j] = true;
}
for(var i = 0; i<= n; i++) !a[i] && r.push(i*2+1);
return r;
}
var primes = [];
console.time("primes");
primes = primeSieve(1000000);
console.timeEnd("primes");
console.log(primes.length);
The loop limits explained:
Just like the Sieve of Erasthotenes, the Sieve of Sundaram algorithm also crosses out some selected integers from the list. To select which integers to cross out the rule is i + j + 2ij ≤ n where i and j are two indices and n is the number of the total elements. Once we cross out every i + j + 2ij, the remaining numbers are doubled and oddified (2n+1) to reveal a list of prime numbers. The final stage is in fact the auto discounting of the even numbers. It's proof is beautifully explained here.
Sieve of Sundaram is only fast if the loop indices start and end limits are correctly selected such that there shall be no (or minimal) redundant (multiple) elimination of the non-primes. As we need i and j values to calculate the numbers to cross out, i + j + 2ij up to n let's see how we can approach.
i) So we have to find the the max value i and j can take when they are equal. Which is 2i + 2i^2 = n. We can easily solve the positive value for i by using the quadratic formula and that is the line with t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*n)-2)/4,
j) The inner loop index j should start from i and run up to the point it can go with the current i value. No more than that. Since we know that i + j + 2ij = n, this can easily be calculated as u = (n-i)/(1+2*i);
While this will not completely remove the redundant crossings it will "greatly" eliminate the redundancy. For instance for n = 50 (to check for primes up to 100) instead of doing 50 x 50 = 2500, we will do only 30 iterations in total. So clearly, this algorithm shouldn't be considered as an O(n^2) time complexity one.
i j v
1 1 4
1 2 7
1 3 10
1 4 13
1 5 16
1 6 19
1 7 22 <<
1 8 25
1 9 28
1 10 31 <<
1 11 34
1 12 37 <<
1 13 40 <<
1 14 43
1 15 46
1 16 49 <<
2 2 12
2 3 17
2 4 22 << dupe #1
2 5 27
2 6 32
2 7 37 << dupe #2
2 8 42
2 9 47
3 3 24
3 4 31 << dupe #3
3 5 38
3 6 45
4 4 40 << dupe #4
4 5 49 << dupe #5
among which there are only 5 duplicates. 22, 31, 37, 40, 49. The redundancy is around 20% for n = 100 however it increases to ~300% for n = 10M. Which means a further optimization of SoS bears the potentital to obtain the results even faster as n grows. So one idea might be segmentation and to keep n small all the time.
So OK.. I have decided to take this quest a little further.
After some careful examination of the repeated crossings I have come to the awareness of the fact that, by the exception of i === 1 case, if either one or both of the i or j index value is among 4,7,10,13,16,19... series, a duplicate crossing is generated. Then allowing the inner loop to turn only when i%3-1 !== 0, a further cut down like 35-40% from the total number of the loops is achieved. So for instance for 1M integers the nested loop's total turn count dropped to like 1M from 1.4M. Wow..! We are talking almost O(n) here.
I have just made a test. In JS, just an empty loop counting up to 1B takes like 4000ms. In the below modified algorithm, finding the primes up to 100M takes the same amount of time.
I have also implemented the segmentation part of this algorithm to push to the workers. So that we will be able to use multiple threads too. But that code will follow a little later.
So let me introduce you the modified Sieve of Sundaram probably at it's best when not segmented. It shall compute the primes between 0-1M in about 15-20ms with Chrome V8 and Edge ChakraCore.
"use strict";
function primeSieve(n){
var a = Array(n = n/2),
t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*n)-2)/4,
u = 0,
r = [];
for(var i = 1; i < (n-1)/3; i++) a[1+3*i] = true;
for(var i = 2; i <= t; i++){
u = (n-i)/(1+2*i);
if (i%3-1) for(var j = i; j < u; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j] = true;
}
for(var i = 0; i< n; i++) !a[i] && r.push(i*2+1);
return r;
}
var primes = [];
console.time("primes");
primes = primeSieve(1000000);
console.timeEnd("primes");
console.log(primes.length);
Well... finally I guess i have implemented a sieve (which is originated from the ingenious Sieve of Sundaram) such that it's the fastest JavaScript sieve that i could have found over the internet, including the "Odds only Sieve of Eratosthenes" or the "Sieve of Atkins". Also this is ready for the web workers, multi-threading.
Think it this way. In this humble AMD PC for a single thread, it takes 3,300 ms for JS just to count up to 10^9 and the following optimized segmented SoS will get me the 50847534 primes up to 10^9 only in 14,000 ms. Which means 4.25 times the operation of just counting. I think it's impressive.
You can test it for yourself;
console.time("tare");
for (var i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++);
console.timeEnd("tare");
And here I introduce you to the segmented Seieve of Sundaram at it's best.
"use strict";
function findPrimes(n){
function primeSieve(g,o,r){
var t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*(g+o))-2)/4,
e = 0,
s = 0;
ar.fill(true);
if (o) {
for(var i = Math.ceil((o-1)/3); i < (g+o-1)/3; i++) ar[1+3*i-o] = false;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
s = Math.ceil((o-i)/(1+2*i));
e = (g+o-i)/(1+2*i);
if (i%3-1) for(var j = s; j < e; j++) ar[i + j + 2*i*j-o] = false;
}
} else {
for(var i = 1; i < (g-1)/3; i++) ar[1+3*i] = false;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
e = (g-i)/(1+2*i);
if (i%3-1) for(var j = i; j < e; j++) ar[i + j + 2*i*j] = false;
}
}
for(var i = 0; i < g; i++) ar[i] && r.push((i+o)*2+1);
return r;
}
var cs = n <= 1e6 ? 7500
: n <= 1e7 ? 60000
: 100000, // chunk size
cc = ~~(n/cs), // chunk count
xs = n % cs, // excess after last chunk
ar = Array(cs/2), // array used as map
result = [];
for(var i = 0; i < cc; i++) result = primeSieve(cs/2,i*cs/2,result);
result = xs ? primeSieve(xs/2,cc*cs/2,result) : result;
result[0] *=2;
return result;
}
var primes = [];
console.time("primes");
primes = findPrimes(1000000000);
console.timeEnd("primes");
console.log(primes.length);
Here I present a multithreaded and slightly improved version of the above algorithm. It utilizes all available threads on your device and resolves all 50,847,534 primes up to 1e9 (1 Billion) in the ballpark of 1.3 seconds on my trash AMD FX-8370 8 core desktop.
While there exists some very sophisticated sublinear sieves, I believe the modified Segmented Sieve of Sundaram could only be stretced this far to being linear in time complexity. Which is not bad.
class Threadable extends Function {
constructor(f){
super("...as",`return ${f.toString()}.apply(this,as)`);
}
spawn(...as){
var code = `self.onmessage = m => self.postMessage(${this.toString()}.apply(null,m.data));`,
blob = new Blob([code], {type: "text/javascript"}),
wrkr = new Worker(window.URL.createObjectURL(blob));
return new Promise((v,x) => ( wrkr.onmessage = m => (v(m.data), wrkr.terminate())
, wrkr.onerror = e => (x(e.message), wrkr.terminate())
, wrkr.postMessage(as)
));
}
}
function pi(n){
function scan(start,end,tid){
function sieve(g,o){
var t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*(g+o))-2)/4,
e = 0,
s = 0,
a = new Uint8Array(g),
c = 0,
l = o ? (g+o-1)/3
: (g-1)/3;
if (o) {
for(var i = Math.ceil((o-1)/3); i < l; i++) a[1+3*i-o] = 0x01;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
if (i%3-1) {
s = Math.ceil((o-i)/(1+2*i));
e = (g+o-i)/(1+2*i);
for(var j = s; j < e; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j-o] = 0x01;
}
}
} else {
for(var i = 1; i < l; i++) a[1+3*i] = 0x01;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
if (i%3-1){
e = (g-i)/(1+2*i);
for(var j = i; j < e; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j] = 0x01;
}
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < g; i++) !a[i] && c++;
return c;
}
end % 2 && end--;
start % 2 && start--;
var n = end - start,
cs = n < 2e6 ? 1e4 :
n < 2e7 ? 2e5 :
4.5e5 , // Math.floor(3*n/1e3), // chunk size
cc = Math.floor(n/cs), // chunk count
xs = n % cs, // excess after last chunk
pc = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < cc; i++) pc += sieve(cs/2,(start+i*cs)/2);
xs && (pc += sieve(xs/2,(start+cc*cs)/2));
return pc;
}
var tc = navigator.hardwareConcurrency,
xs = n % tc,
cs = (n-xs) / tc,
st = new Threadable(scan),
ps = Array.from( {length:tc}
, (_,i) => i ? st.spawn(i*cs+xs,(i+1)*cs+xs,i)
: st.spawn(0,cs+xs,i)
);
return Promise.all(ps);
}
var n = 1e9,
count;
console.time("primes");
pi(n).then(cs => ( count = cs.reduce((p,c) => p+c)
, console.timeEnd("primes")
, console.log(count)
)
)
.catch(e => console.log(`Error: ${e}`));
So this is as far as I could take the Sieve of Sundaram.

A number is a prime if it is not divisible by other primes lower than the number in question.
So this builds up a primes array. Tests each new odd candidate n for division against existing found primes lower than n. As an optimization it does not consider even numbers and prepends 2 as a final step.
var primes = [];
for(var n=3;n<=100;n+=2) {
if(primes.every(function(prime){return n%prime!=0})) {
primes.push(n);
}
}
primes.unshift(2);

To find prime numbers between 0 to n. You just have to check if a number x is getting divisible by any number between 0 - (square root of x). If we pass n and to find all prime numbers between 0 and n, logic can be implemented as -
function findPrimeNums(n)
{
var x= 3,j,i=2,
primeArr=[2],isPrime;
for (;x<=n;x+=2){
j = (int) Math.sqrt (x);
isPrime = true;
for (i = 2; i <= j; i++)
{
if (x % i == 0){
isPrime = false;
break;
}
}
if(isPrime){
primeArr.push(x);
}
}
return primeArr;
}

var n=100;
var counter = 0;
var primeNumbers = "Prime Numbers: ";
for(var i=2; i<=n; ++i)
{
counter=0;
for(var j=2; j<=n; ++j)
{
if(i>=j && i%j == 0)
{
++counter;
}
}
if(counter == 1)
{
primeNumbers = primeNumbers + i + " ";
}
}
console.log(primeNumbers);

Luchian's answer gives you a link to the standard technique for finding primes.
A less efficient, but simpler approach is to turn your existing code into a nested loop. Observe that you are dividing by 2,3,4,5,6 and so on ... and turn that into a loop.
Given that this is homework, and given that the aim of the homework is to help you learn basic programming, a solution that is simple, correct but somewhat inefficient should be fine.

Using recursion combined with the square root rule from here, checks whether a number is prime or not:
function isPrime(num){
// An integer is prime if it is not divisible by any prime less than or equal to its square root
var squareRoot = parseInt(Math.sqrt(num));
var primeCountUp = function(divisor){
if(divisor > squareRoot) {
// got to a point where the divisor is greater than
// the square root, therefore it is prime
return true;
}
else if(num % divisor === 0) {
// found a result that divides evenly, NOT prime
return false;
}
else {
// keep counting
return primeCountUp(++divisor);
}
};
// start # 2 because everything is divisible by 1
return primeCountUp(2);
}

You can try this method also, this one is basic but easy to understand:
var tw = 2, th = 3, fv = 5, se = 7;
document.write(tw + "," + th + ","+ fv + "," + se + ",");
for(var n = 0; n <= 100; n++)
{
if((n % tw !== 0) && (n % th !==0) && (n % fv !==0 ) && (n % se !==0))
{
if (n == 1)
{
continue;
}
document.write(n +",");
}
}

I recently came up with a one-line solution that accomplishes exactly this for a JS challenge on Scrimba (below).
ES6+
const getPrimes=num=>Array(num-1).fill().map((e,i)=>2+i).filter((e,i,a)=>a.slice(0,i).every(x=>e%x!==0));
< ES6
function getPrimes(num){return ",".repeat(num).slice(0,-1).split(',').map(function(e,i){return i+1}).filter(function(e){return e>1}).filter(function(x){return ",".repeat(x).slice(0,-1).split(',').map(function(f,j){return j}).filter(function(e){return e>1}).every(function(e){return x%e!==0})})};
This is the logic explained:
First, the function builds an array of all numbers leading up to the desired number (in this case, 100) via the .repeat() function using the desired number (100) as the repeater argument and then mapping the array to the indexes+1 to get the range of numbers from 0 to that number (0-100). A bit of string splitting and joining magic going on here. I'm happy to explain this step further if you like.
We exclude 0 and 1 from the array as they should not be tested for prime, lest they give a false positive. Neither are prime. We do this using .filter() for only numbers > 1 (≥ 2).
Now, we filter our new array of all integers between 2 and the desired number (100) for only prime numbers. To filter for prime numbers only, we use some of the same magic from our first step. We use .filter() and .repeat() once again to create a new array from 2 to each value from our new array of numbers. For each value's new array, we check to see if any of the numbers ≥ 2 and < that number are factors of the number. We can do this using the .every() method paired with the modulo operator % to check if that number has any remainders when divided by any of those values between 2 and itself. If each value has remainders (x%e!==0), the condition is met for all values from 2 to that number (but not including that number, i.e.: [2,99]) and we can say that number is prime. The filter functions returns all prime numbers to the uppermost return, thereby returning the list of prime values between 2 and the passed value.
As an example, using one of these functions I've added above, returns the following:
getPrimes(100);
// => [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,89,97]

Here's a fast way to calculate primes in JavaScript, based on the previous prime value.
function nextPrime(value) {
if (value > 2) {
var i, q;
do {
i = 3;
value += 2;
q = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(value));
while (i <= q && value % i) {
i += 2;
}
} while (i <= q);
return value;
}
return value === 2 ? 3 : 2;
}
Test
var value = 0, result = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
value = nextPrime(value);
result.push(value);
}
console.log("Primes:", result);
Output
Primes: [ 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29 ]
It is faster than other alternatives published here, because:
It aligns the loop limit to an integer, which works way faster;
It uses a shorter iteration loop, skipping even numbers.
It can give you the first 100,000 primes in about 130ms, or the first 1m primes in about 4 seconds.
function nextPrime(value) {
if (value > 2) {
var i, q;
do {
i = 3;
value += 2;
q = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(value));
while (i <= q && value % i) {
i += 2;
}
} while (i <= q);
return value;
}
return value === 2 ? 3 : 2;
}
var value, result = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
value = nextPrime(value);
result.push(value);
}
display("Primes: " + result.join(', '));
function display(msg) {
document.body.insertAdjacentHTML(
"beforeend",
"<p>" + msg + "</p>"
);
}
UPDATE
A modern, efficient way of doing it, using prime-lib:
import {generatePrimes, stopWhen} from 'prime-lib';
const p = generatePrimes(); //=> infinite prime generator
const i = stopWhen(p, a => a > 100); //=> Iterable<number>
console.log(...i); //=> 2 3 5 7 11 ... 89 97

<code>
<script language="javascript">
var n=prompt("Enter User Value")
var x=1;
if(n==0 || n==1) x=0;
for(i=2;i<n;i++)
{
if(n%i==0)
{
x=0;
break;
}
}
if(x==1)
{
alert(n +" "+" is prime");
}
else
{
alert(n +" "+" is not prime");
}
</script>

Sieve of Eratosthenes. its bit look but its simple and it works!
function count_prime(arg) {
arg = typeof arg !== 'undefined' ? arg : 20; //default value
var list = [2]
var list2 = [0,1]
var real_prime = []
counter = 2
while (counter < arg ) {
if (counter % 2 !== 0) {
list.push(counter)
}
counter++
}
for (i = 0; i < list.length - 1; i++) {
var a = list[i]
for (j = 0; j < list.length - 1; j++) {
if (list[j] % a === 0 && list[j] !== a) {
list[j] = false; // assign false to non-prime numbers
}
}
if (list[i] !== false) {
real_prime.push(list[i]); // save all prime numbers in new array
}
}
}
window.onload=count_prime(100);

And this famous code from a famous JS Ninja
var isPrime = n => Array(Math.ceil(Math.sqrt(n)+1)).fill().map((e,i)=>i).slice(2).every(m => n%m);
console.log(Array(100).fill().map((e,i)=>i+1).slice(1).filter(isPrime));

A list built using the new features of ES6, especially with generator.
Go to https://codepen.io/arius/pen/wqmzGp made in Catalan language for classes with my students. I hope you find it useful.
function* Primer(max) {
const infinite = !max && max !== 0;
const re = /^.?$|^(..+?)\1+$/;
let current = 1;
while (infinite || max-- ) {
if(!re.test('1'.repeat(current)) == true) yield current;
current++
};
};
let [...list] = Primer(100);
console.log(list);

Here's the very simple way to calculate primes between a given range(1 to limit).
Simple Solution:
public static void getAllPrimeNumbers(int limit) {
System.out.println("Printing prime number from 1 to " + limit);
for(int number=2; number<=limit; number++){
//***print all prime numbers upto limit***
if(isPrime(number)){
System.out.println(number);
}
}
}
public static boolean isPrime(int num) {
if (num == 0 || num == 1) {
return false;
}
if (num == 2) {
return true;
}
for (int i = 2; i <= num / 2; i++) {
if (num % i == 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}

A version without any loop. Use this against any array you have. ie.,
[1,2,3...100].filter(x=>isPrime(x));
const isPrime = n => {
if(n===1){
return false;
}
if([2,3,5,7].includes(n)){
return true;
}
return n%2!=0 && n%3!=0 && n%5!=0 && n%7!=0;
}

Here's my stab at it.
Change the initial i=0 from 0 to whatever you want, and the the second i<100 from 100 to whatever to get primes in a different range.
for(var i=0; i<100000; i++){
var devisableCount = 2;
for(var x=0; x<=i/2; x++){
if (devisableCount > 3) {
break;
}
if(i !== 1 && i !== 0 && i !== x){
if(i%x === 0){
devisableCount++;
}
}
}
if(devisableCount === 3){
console.log(i);
}
}
I tried it with 10000000 - it takes some time but appears to be accurate.

Here are the Brute-force iterative method and Sieve of Eratosthenes method to find prime numbers upto n. The performance of the second method is better than first in terms of time complexity
Brute-force iterative
function findPrime(n) {
var res = [2],
isNotPrime;
for (var i = 3; i < n; i++) {
isNotPrime = res.some(checkDivisorExist);
if ( !isNotPrime ) {
res.push(i);
}
}
function checkDivisorExist (j) {
return i % j === 0;
}
return res;
}
Sieve of Eratosthenes method
function seiveOfErasthones (n) {
var listOfNum =range(n),
i = 2;
// CHeck only until the square of the prime is less than number
while (i*i < n && i < n) {
listOfNum = filterMultiples(listOfNum, i);
i++;
}
return listOfNum;
function range (num) {
var res = [];
for (var i = 2; i <= num; i++) {
res.push(i);
}
return res;
}
function filterMultiples (list, x) {
return list.filter(function (item) {
// Include numbers smaller than x as they are already prime
return (item <= x) || (item > x && item % x !== 0);
});
}
}

You can use this for any size of array of prime numbers. Hope this helps
function prime() {
var num = 2;
var body = document.getElementById("solution");
var len = arguments.length;
var flag = true;
for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
for (i = num; i < arguments[j]; i++) {
if (arguments[j] % i == 0) {
body.innerHTML += arguments[j] + " False <br />";
flag = false;
break;
} else {
flag = true;
}
}
if (flag) {
body.innerHTML += arguments[j] + " True <br />";
}
}
}
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
prime.apply(null, data);
<div id="solution">
</div>

public static void main(String[] args) {
int m = 100;
int a[] =new int[m];
for (int i=2; i<m; i++)
for (int j=0; j<m; j+=i)
a[j]++;
for (int i=0; i<m; i++)
if (a[i]==1) System.out.println(i);
}

Using Sieve of Eratosthenes, source on Rosettacode
fastest solution: https://repl.it/#caub/getPrimes-bench
function getPrimes(limit) {
if (limit < 2) return [];
var sqrtlmt = limit**.5 - 2;
var nums = Array.from({length: limit-1}, (_,i)=>i+2);
for (var i = 0; i <= sqrtlmt; i++) {
var p = nums[i]
if (p) {
for (var j = p * p - 2; j < nums.length; j += p)
nums[j] = 0;
}
}
return nums.filter(x => x); // return non 0 values
}
document.body.innerHTML = `<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">${getPrimes(100).join(', ')}</pre>`;
// for fun, this fantasist regexp way (very inefficient):
// Array.from({length:101}, (_,i)=>i).filter(n => n>1&&!/^(oo+)\1+$/.test('o'.repeat(n))

Why try deleting by 4 (and 6,8,10,12) if we've already tried deleting by 2 ?
Why try deleting by 9 if we've already tried deleting by 3 ?
Why try deleting by 11 if 11 * 11 = 121 which is greater than 100 ?
Why try deleting any odd number by 2 at all?
Why try deleting any even number above 2 by anything at all?
Eliminate the dead tests and you'll get yourself a good code, testing for primes below 100.
And your code is very far from being the worst code ever. Many many others would try dividing 100 by 99. But the absolute champion would generate all products of 2..96 with 2..96 to test whether 97 is among them. That one really is astonishingly inefficient.
Sieve of Eratosthenes of course is much better, and you can have one -- under 100 -- with no arrays of booleans (and no divisions too!):
console.log(2)
var m3 = 9, m5 = 25, m7 = 49, i = 3
for( ; i < 100; i += 2 )
{
if( i != m3 && i != m5 && i != m7) console.log(i)
else
{
if( i == m3 ) m3 += 6
if( i == m5 ) m5 += 10
if( i == m7 ) m7 += 14
}
} "DONE"
This is the sieve of Eratosthenes, were we skip over the composites - and that's what this code is doing. The timing of generation of composites and of skipping over them (by checking for equality) is mixed into one timeline. The usual sieve first generates composites and marks them in an array, then sweeps the array. Here the two stages are mashed into one, to avoid having to use any array at all (this only works because we know the top limit's square root - 10 - in advance and use only primes below it, viz. 3,5,7 - with 2's multiples, i.e. evens, implicitly skipped over in advance).
In other words this is an incremental sieve of Eratosthenes and m3, m5, m7 form an implicit priority queue of the multiples of primes 3, 5, and 7.

I was searching how to find out prime number and went through above code which are too long. I found out a new easy solution for prime number and add them using filter. Kindly suggest me if there is any mistake in my code as I am a beginner.
function sumPrimes(num) {
let newNum = [];
for(let i = 2; i <= num; i++) {
newNum.push(i)
}
for(let i in newNum) {
newNum = newNum.filter(item => item == newNum[i] || item % newNum[i] !== 0)
}
return newNum.reduce((a,b) => a+b)
}
sumPrimes(10);

Here is an efficient, short solution using JS generators. JSfiddle
// Consecutive integers
let nats = function* (n) {
while (true) yield n++
}
// Wrapper generator
let primes = function* () {
yield* sieve(primes(), nats(2))
}
// The sieve itself; only tests primes up to sqrt(n)
let sieve = function* (pg, ng) {
yield ng.next().value;
let n, p = pg.next().value;
while ((n = ng.next().value) < p * p) yield n;
yield* sieve(pg, (function* () {
while (n = ng.next().value) if (n % p) yield n
})())
}
// Longest prefix of stream where some predicate holds
let take = function* (vs, fn) {
let nx;
while (!(nx = vs.next()).done && fn(nx.value)) yield nx.value
}
document.querySelectorAll('dd')[0].textContent =
// Primes smaller than 100
[...take(primes(), x => x < 100)].join(', ')
<dl>
<dt>Primes under 100</dt>
<dd></dd>
</dl>

First, change your inner code for another loop (for and while) so you can repeat the same code for different values.
More specific for your problem, if you want to know if a given n is prime, you need to divide it for all values between 2 and sqrt(n). If any of the modules is 0, it is not prime.
If you want to find all primes, you can speed it and check n only by dividing by the previously found primes. Another way of speeding the process is the fact that, apart from 2 and 3, all the primes are 6*k plus or less 1.

It would behoove you, if you're going to use any of the gazillion algorithms that you're going to be presented with in this thread, to learn to memoize some of them.
See Interview question : What is the fastest way to generate prime number recursively?

Use following function to find out prime numbers :
function primeNumbers() {
var p
var n = document.primeForm.primeText.value
var d
var x
var prime
var displayAll = 2 + " "
for (p = 3; p <= n; p = p + 2) {
x = Math.sqrt(p)
prime = 1
for (d = 3; prime && (d <= x); d = d + 2)
if ((p % d) == 0) prime = 0
else prime = 1
if (prime == 1) {
displayAll = displayAll + p + " "
}
}
document.primeForm.primeArea.value = displayAll
}

Inserting into a number string

Have the function DashInsert(num) insert dashes ('-') between each two odd numbers in num. For example: if num is 454793 the output should be 4547-9-3. Don't count zero as an odd number.
Here is my code (not working). When I run it, I get the same response as an infinite loop where I have to kill the page but I can't see why. I know there are ways to do this by keeping it as a string but now I'm wondering why my way isn't working. Thanks...
function DashInsert(num) {
num = num.split("");
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i - 1] % 2 != 0 && num[i] % 2 != 0) {
num.splice(i, 0, "-");
}
}
num = num.join("");
return num;
}

Using num.splice you are inserting new entries into the array, therefor increasing its length – and that makes the value of i “running behind” the increasing length of the array, so the break condition is never met.
And apart from that, on the next iteration after inserting a -, num[i-1] will be that - character, and therefor you are practically trying to check if '-' % 2 != 0 … that makes little sense as well.
So, when you insert a - into the array, you have to increase i by one as well – that will a) account for the length of the array having increased by one, and also it will check the next digit after the - on the next iteration:
function DashInsert(num) {
num = num.split("");
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i - 1] % 2 != 0 && num[i] % 2 != 0) {
num.splice(i, 0, "-");
i++; // <- this is the IMPORTANT part!
}
}
num = num.join("");
return num;
}
alert(DashInsert("454793"));
http://jsfiddle.net/37wA9/

Once you insert a dash -, the if statement is checking this '-'%2 != 0 which is always true and thus inserts another dash, ad infinitum.
Here's one way to do it with replace using a regex and function:
function DashInsert(n) {
var f = function(m,i,s) { return m&s[i+1]&1 ? m+'-' : m; };
return String(n).replace(/\d/g,f);
}
DashInsert(454793) // "4547-9-3"

When you are adding a dash, this dash will be processed as a number on the next iteration. You need to forward one step.
function DashInsert(num) {
var num = num.split("");
for (var i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if ((num[i - 1] % 2 != 0) && (num[i] % 2 != 0)) {
num.splice(i, 0, "-");
i++; // This is the only thing that needs changing
}
}
num = num.join("");
return num;
}

It's because there are cases when you use the % operator on dash '-' itself, e.g. right after you splice a dash into the array.
You can correct this behavior by using a clone array.
function DashInsert(num) {
num = num.split("");
var clone = num.slice(0);
var offset = 0;
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i - 1] % 2 != 0 && num[i] % 2 != 0) {
clone.splice(i + offset, 0, "-");
offset++;
}
}
return clone.join("");
}
alert(DashInsert("45739"));
Output: 45-7-3-9
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/262Bf/

To complement the great answers already given, I would like to share an alternative implementation, that doesn't modify arrays in-place:
function DashInsert(num) {
var characters = num.split("");
var numbers = characters.map(function(chr) {
return parseInt(chr, 10);
});
var withDashes = numbers.reduce(function(result, current) {
var lastNumber = result[result.length - 1];
if(lastNumber == null || current % 2 === 0 || lastNumber % 2 === 0) {
return result.concat(current);
} else {
return result.concat("-", current);
}
}, []);
return withDashes.join("");
}
It's longer, but IMHO reveals the intention better, and avoids the original issue.