why isn't this js code for finding derivative working? - javascript

When ran it gives an alert box with undefined written, Can you help me debug this code? I am unable to find the correct error you can check it and please help me. It must give the derivative at point x=10 for f(x)=x^2+1 by using smaller and smaller h till desired accuracy is reached.
function f(x) {
return x * x + 1;
}
var iter = [];
var h = 0;
var ddx = 0;
iter[0] = ((f(10 + h) - f(10)) / h);
function d_dx(p) {
for (i = 1; i < 20; i++) {
iter[i] = ((f(p + h) - f(p)) / h);
if (iter[i] = iter[i - 1]) {
break;
var ddx = iter[i];
} else {
h = h / 2;
}
}
return ddx;
}
console.log(d_dx(10));

Your iter array will be NaN. h will be always 0 and you divide by 0.
if (iter[i] = iter[i - 1]) statement is wrong, you should use === to compare values. You cannot use break in if if you want to loop this code multiple times. There are many mistakes in your code.

var ddx is not reachable after break. That's why it is returning undefined. And one more thing, you are using assignment instead of conditional expression.(correct comparison is - if (iter[i] == iter[i - 1])) )
You have used var ddx out of scope while you are returning the ddx.

Related

NodeJs calculation gone wrong

I have if statement like:
if((gotPrice * price.value).toFixed(0) >= answers.MINIMUM_BUY_AMOUNT) {
...
}
Results are
(gotPrice * price.value).toFixed(0) = 0
and
answers.MINIMUM_BUY_AMOUNT = 200
Then it fall to true! not sure in what world 0 is greater or equal to 200!!
I also tried this way but results was the same
if((gotPrice * price.value).toFixed(0) >= Number(answers.MINIMUM_BUY_AMOUNT).toFixed(0)) {
...
}
sample:
var x = 0.3431;
var y = 1.5467;
var z = '200';
console.log((x * y).toFixed(0) >= z); // false (but in my case says true!)
Any suggestions?
ToFixed converts number to string, calculations should be done with numbers
var x = 0.3431;
var y = 1.5467;
var z = parseInt('200');
console.log(Math.round(x * y) >= z);

Get reverse of an equation - JavaScript

Let's say I have this formula, for example:
function getExperience(level) {
let a = 0;
for (let x = 1; x < level; x += 1) {
a += Math.floor(x + (200 * (2 ** (x / 3))));
}
return Math.floor(a / 4);
}
for (var i = 1; i < 100; i++) {
console.log(`Level ${i}: ${getExperience(i)}`);
}
To get the experience needed for level 50, you'd do: getExperience(50).
But, how would you reverse that and get the LEVEL needed for experience? So, getLevel(20010272) would output 50.
Short answer
You can use 4.328085 * Math.log(0.00519842 * xp + 1.259921045) as a very good approximation of the corresponding level.
If you need an exact value, you could iterate over all levels until you find the desired range, as in this answer.
Long answer
Slightly modified function
I don't think it's possible to find an exact, closed-form expression for the inverse of this function. It should be possible if you modify getExperience(level) a bit, though.
First, you can notice that x grows much slower than 2 ** (x / 3).
Then, Math.floor doesn't have much influence over large numbers.
So let's remove them! Here's the slightly modified function:
function getExperienceEstimate(level) {
let a = 0;
for (let x = 1; x < level; x += 1) {
a += 200 * (2 ** (x / 3));
}
return a / 4;
}
The advantage of this method is that it's now a geometric series, so it's possible to calculate the sum directly, without any loop:
function getExperienceEstimate(level) {
let a = 50;
let r = 2 ** (1 / 3);
return a * (r**level - r) / (r - 1);
};
getExperienceEstimate(50) returns 20011971.993575357, which is only 0.0015% smaller than getExperience(50).
Inverse function
According to Wolfram Alpha, here's the inverse function of getExperienceEstimate:
function getLevelEstimate(xp){
let a = 50;
let r = 2 ** (1 / 3);
return Math.log(xp * (r - 1) / a + r) / Math.log(r);
};
With some minor precision loss, you can simplify it further:
function getLevelEstimate(xp){
return 4.328085 * Math.log(0.00519842 * xp + 1.259921045)
};
It's only an estimate, but it works pretty well and doesn't require any loop!
Test
For 20012272 XP, the approximate inverse function returns 50.00006263463371, which should be a good starting point if you want to find the exact result.
function getExperience(level) {
let a = 0;
for (let x = 1; x < level; x += 1) {
a += Math.floor(x + (200 * (2 ** (x / 3))));
}
return Math.floor(a / 4);
}
function getLevelEstimate(xp){
return 4.328085 * Math.log(0.00519842 * xp + 1.259921045)
};
for (var i = 1; i < 100; i++) {
console.log(`Level ${i} (XP = ${getExperience(i)}). Estimated level : ${getLevelEstimate(getExperience(i))}`);
}
You can use a binary search algorithm to avoid to loop over all possibilities.
Here is an example that I have adapted to your case.
You first need to create an array to map all your level => experience, this action should be done only ONCE, then you never have to do it again.
As you can see in my example, even with 1000 levels, you never have to iterate more than 9 times whatever level you are trying to find.
// You first have to create an array with all your levels.
// This has to be done only ONCE because it's an expensive one!
const list = [];
for (let i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) {
list[i] = getExperience(i);
}
function getExperience(level) {
let a = 0;
for (let x = 1; x < level; x += 1) {
a += Math.floor(x + (200 * (2 ** (x / 3))));
}
return Math.floor(a / 4);
}
function getLevel(value) {
// initial values for start, middle and end
let start = 0
let stop = list.length - 1
let middle = Math.floor((start + stop) / 2)
let iterations = 0;
// While the middle is not what we're looking for and the list does not have a single item.
while (list[middle] !== value && start < stop) {
iterations++;
if (value < list[middle]) {
stop = middle - 1
} else {
start = middle + 1
}
// Recalculate middle on every iteration.
middle = Math.floor((start + stop) / 2)
}
console.log(`${value} is Level ${middle} (Result found after ${iterations} iterations)`);
return middle;
}
// Then you can search your level according to the experience
getLevel(0);
getLevel(72);
getLevel(20010272);
getLevel(getExperience(50));
getLevel(33578608987644589722);
A brute-force (but inelegant) solution would be to just call getExperience for levels until you reach a level that requires more experience than the passed exp:
function getLevel(exp) {
if (exp === 0) return 0;
let level = 0;
let calcExp = 0;
while (exp > calcExp) {
calcExp = getExperience(level);
if (calcExp > exp) break;
level++;
}
return level - 1;
}
console.log(getLevel(20012272)); // experience required for 50 on the dot
console.log(getLevel(20012270));
console.log(getLevel(20012274));
console.log(getLevel(0));
function getExperience(level) {
let a = 0;
for (let x = 1; x < level; x += 1) {
a += Math.floor(x + (200 * (2 ** (x / 3))));
}
return Math.floor(a / 4);
}
You can use binary search to locate level value faster - in 7 steps max.
(while I doubt that gain is significant for length 100 list)

Having two if condition

I am currently studying if condition statement and it is one of my weakest topic ever. Here in this code below, there are two if conditions and I would like to know, how do we find the output of this? I know how to get the output when there is one if. But what about having two if?
function exercise3(){
var x, y, z;
x = 20;
y = 30;
z = 50;
if ((x - 10) < y) {
if (y - 5 > x) {
alert (z - x);
}
else {
alert (z - 5);
}
}
}
exercise3();
This is referred as Nested If statement. Basically you deal with the most outer block first before the going into the inner block. You would only go into the inner block if the condition in the statement is true.
Your statement condition is true
if ((x - 10) < y) {
...
}
Hence you would proceed to read through.
Take note generally to make it more readable better use If else statements rather than if alone as the execution will proceed to check the next if statement with is actually block one and block two (one by one) bringing about slow execution in long written statements.
Ref: https://www.w3schools.com/js/js_if_else.asp
Cheers, happy learning and happy coding.
That is the same as this, if it helps you understand better. The below snippet is just for example purpose, do not follow that. You need to use nested if conditionals.
function exercise3(){
var x, y, z;
x = 20;
y = 30;
z = 50;
// The first if and nested if from your snippet
if ((x - 10) < y) && (y - 5) > x) {
alert(z - x);
}
// The first if and nested else from your snippet
if ((x - 10) < y && (y - 5) <= x) {
alert (z - 5);
}
}
exercise3();

JavaScript - Binary search hangs every time

I have a 2D array, something like the following:
[1.11, 23]
[2.22, 52]
[3.33, 61]
...
Where the array is ordered by the first value in each row.
I am trying to find a value within the array that is close to the search value - within a certain sensitivity. The way this is set up, and the value of the sensitivity, ensure only one possible match within the array.
The search value is the current x-pos of the mouse. The search is called on mousemove, and so is being called often.
Originally I had the following (using a start-to-end for loop):
for(var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++){
if(Math.abs(arr[i][0] - x) <= sensitivity){
hit = true;
break;
}
}
And it works like a charm. So far, I've only been using small data sets, so there is no apparent lag using this method. But, eventually I will be using much larger data sets, and so want to switch this to a Binary Search:
var a = 0;
var b = arr.length - 1;
var c = 0;
while(a < b){
c = Math.floor((a + b) / 2);
if(Math.abs(arr[c][0] - x) <= sensitivity){
hit = true;
break;
}else if(arr[c][0] < x){
a = c;
}else{
b = c;
}
}
This works well, for all of 2 seconds, and then it hangs to the point where I need to restart my browser. I've used binary searches plenty in the past, and cannot for the life of me figure out why this one isn't working properly.
EDIT 1
var sensitivity = (width / arr.length) / 2.001
The points in the array are equidistant, and so this sensitivity ensures that there is no ambiguous 1/2-way point in between two arr values. You are either in one or the other.
Values are created dynamically at page load, but look exactly like what I've mentioned above. The x-values have more significant figures, and the y values are all over the place, but there is no significant difference between the small sample I provided and the generated one.
EDIT 2
Printed a list that was dynamically created:
[111.19999999999999, 358.8733333333333]
[131.4181818181818, 408.01333333333326]
[151.63636363636363, 249.25333333333327]
[171.85454545454544, 261.01333333333326]
[192.07272727272726, 298.39333333333326]
[212.29090909090908, 254.2933333333333]
[232.5090909090909, 308.47333333333324]
[252.72727272727272, 331.1533333333333]
[272.94545454545454, 386.1733333333333]
[293.16363636363633, 384.9133333333333]
[313.3818181818182, 224.05333333333328]
[333.6, 284.53333333333325]
[353.81818181818187, 278.2333333333333]
[374.0363636363637, 391.63333333333327]
[394.25454545454556, 322.33333333333326]
[414.4727272727274, 300.9133333333333]
[434.69090909090926, 452.95333333333326]
[454.9090909090911, 327.7933333333333]
[475.12727272727295, 394.9933333333332]
[495.3454545454548, 451.27333333333326]
[515.5636363636366, 350.89333333333326]
[535.7818181818185, 308.47333333333324]
[556.0000000000003, 395.83333333333326]
[576.2181818181822, 341.23333333333323]
[596.436363636364, 371.47333333333324]
[616.6545454545459, 436.9933333333333]
[636.8727272727277, 280.7533333333333]
[657.0909090909096, 395.4133333333333]
[677.3090909090914, 433.21333333333325]
[697.5272727272733, 355.09333333333325]
[717.7454545454551, 333.2533333333333]
[737.963636363637, 255.55333333333328]
[758.1818181818188, 204.7333333333333]
[778.4000000000007, 199.69333333333327]
[798.6181818181825, 202.63333333333327]
[818.8363636363644, 253.87333333333328]
[839.0545454545462, 410.5333333333333]
[859.272727272728, 345.85333333333324]
[879.4909090909099, 305.11333333333323]
[899.7090909090917, 337.8733333333333]
[919.9272727272736, 351.3133333333333]
[940.1454545454554, 324.01333333333326]
[960.3636363636373, 331.57333333333327]
[980.5818181818191, 447.4933333333333]
[1000.800000000001, 432.3733333333333]
As you can see, it is ordered by the first value in each row, ascending.
SOLUTION
Changing the condition to
while(a < b)
and
var b = positions.length;
and
else if(arr[c][0] < x){
a = c + 1;
}
did the trick.
Your binary search seems to be a bit off: try this.
var arr = [[1,0],[3,0],[5,0]];
var lo = 0;
var hi = arr.length;
var x = 5;
var sensitivity = 0.1;
while (lo < hi) {
var c = Math.floor((lo + hi) / 2);
if (Math.abs(arr[c][0] - x) <= sensitivity) {
hit = true;
console.log("FOUND " + c);
break;
} else if (x > arr[c][0]) {
lo = c + 1;
} else {
hi = c;
}
}
This is meant as a general reference to anyone implementing binary search.
Let:
lo be the smallest index that may possibly contain your value,
hi be one more than the largest index that may contain your value
If these conventions are followed, then binary search is simply:
while (lo < hi) {
var mid = (lo + hi) / 2;
if (query == ary[mid]) {
// do stuff
else if (query < ary[mid]) {
// query is smaller than mid
// so query can be anywhere between lo and (mid - 1)
// the upper bound should be adjusted
hi = mid;
else {
// query can be anywhere between (mid + 1) and hi.
// adjust the lower bound
lo = mid + 1;
}
I don't know your exact situation, but here's a way the code could crash:
1) Start with an array with two X values. This array will have a length of 2, so a = 0, b = 1, c = 0.
2) a < b, so the while loop executes.
3) c = floor((a + b) / 2) = floor(0.5) = 0.
4) Assume the mouse is not within sensitivity of the first X value, so the first if branch does not hit.
5) Assume our X values are to the right of our mouse, so the second if branch enters. This sets a = c, or 0, which it already is.
6) Thus, we get an endless loop.

d3.js How to simplify a complex path - using a custom algorithm

I've got a very basic example here. http://jsfiddle.net/jEfsh/57/ that creates a complex path - with lots of points. I've read up on an algorithm that may look over the points and create a simpler set of coordinates. Does anyone have any experience with this - examples on how to loop through the path data and pass it through the algorithm - find the shortest set of points to create a more rudimentary version of the shape?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramer-Douglas-Peucker_algorithm
var points = "M241,59L237,60L233,60L228,61L224,61L218,63L213,63L209,65L204,66L199,67L196,68L193,69L189,70L187,72L184,72L182,74L179,75L177,76L175,78L173,79L170,81L168,83L165,85L163,87L161,89L159,92L157,95L157,97L155,102L153,105L152,110L151,113L151,117L151,123L150,137L148,180L148,185L148,189L148,193L148,197L148,202L148,206L149,212L151,218L152,222L154,229L154,232L155,235L157,239L158,241L160,245L162,247L163,249L165,251L167,254L169,256L172,258L175,260L178,261L183,265L188,268L193,270L206,273L213,275L220,275L225,275L232,276L238,277L243,277L249,277L253,277L259,277L266,277L271,277L277,277L281,277L284,277L288,277L293,277L297,276L302,274L305,272L308,271L311,268L313,267L315,264L318,261L322,257L324,254L326,249L329,244L331,241L332,239L334,234L338,230L339,226L341,222L343,218L345,213L347,211L348,207L349,201L351,196L352,192L353,187L353,183L353,180L353,178L354,176L354,173L354,170L354,168L354,167L354,166L354,164L354,162L354,161L354,159L354,158L354,155L354,152L354,149L352,143L349,137L347,133L343,125L340,119 M241,59L340,119";
d3.select("#g-1").append("path").attr("d", points);
//simplify the path
function DouglasPeucker(){
}
/*
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramer-Douglas-Peucker_algorithm
function DouglasPeucker(PointList[], epsilon)
// Find the point with the maximum distance
dmax = 0
index = 0
end = length(PointList)
for i = 2 to ( end - 1) {
d = shortestDistanceToSegment(PointList[i], Line(PointList[1], PointList[end]))
if ( d > dmax ) {
index = i
dmax = d
}
}
// If max distance is greater than epsilon, recursively simplify
if ( dmax > epsilon ) {
// Recursive call
recResults1[] = DouglasPeucker(PointList[1...index], epsilon)
recResults2[] = DouglasPeucker(PointList[index...end], epsilon)
// Build the result list
ResultList[] = {recResults1[1...end-1] recResults2[1...end]}
} else {
ResultList[] = {PointList[1], PointList[end]}
}
// Return the result
return ResultList[]
end
*/
It's not clear what your problem is exactly. Do you have problems to turn the SVG data string into a list of points? You can use this:
function path_from_svg(svg) {
var pts = svg.split(/[ML]/);
var path = [];
console.log(pts.length);
for (var i = 1; i < pts.length; i++) {
path.push(pts[i].split(","));
}
return path;
}
It is a very simple approach: It splits the string on all move (M) and line (L) commands and treats them as lines. It then splits all substrings on the comma. The first "substring" is ignored, because it is the empty string before the first M. If there is a way to do this better in d3 I haven't found it.
The reverse operation is easier:
function svg_to_path(path) {
return "M" + path.join("L");
}
This is equivalent to svg.line.interpolate("linear").
You can then implement the Douglas-Peucker algorithm on this path data recursively:
function path_simplify_r(path, first, last, eps) {
if (first >= last - 1) return [path[first]];
var px = path[first][0];
var py = path[first][1];
var dx = path[last][0] - px;
var dy = path[last][1] - py;
var nn = Math.sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);
var nx = -dy / nn;
var ny = dx / nn;
var ii = first;
var max = -1;
for (var i = first + 1; i < last; i++) {
var p = path[i];
var qx = p[0] - px;
var qy = p[1] - py;
var d = Math.abs(qx * nx + qy * ny);
if (d > max) {
max = d;
ii = i;
}
}
if (max < eps) return [path[first]];
var p1 = path_simplify_r(path, first, ii, eps);
var p2 = path_simplify_r(path, ii, last, eps);
return p1.concat(p2);
}
function path_simplify(path, eps) {
var p = path_simplify_r(path, 0, path.length - 1, eps);
return p.concat([path[path.length - 1]]);
}
The distance to the line is not calculated in a separate function but directly with the formula for the distance of a point to a 2d line from the normal {nx, ny} on the line vector {dx, dy} between the first and last point. The normal is normalised, nx*nx + ny*ny == 1.
When creating the paths, only the first point is added, the last point path[last] is implied and must be added in path_simplify, which is a front end to the recursive function path_simplify_r. This approach was chosen so that concatenating the left and right subpaths does not create a duplicate point in the middle. (This could equally well and maybe cleaner be done by joining p1 and p2.slice(1).)
Here's everything put together in a fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/Cbk9J/3/
Lots of good references in the comments to this question -- alas they are comments and not suggested answers which can be truly voted on.
http://bost.ocks.org/mike/simplify/
shows interactive use of this kind of thing which references Douglas-Peucker but also Visvalingam.

Categories