I have a long loop that takes maybe 10 mins or more, and I want to set always a new time to avoid it to continue. But it dosen't works.
function problem3(){
var img = document.getElementById('p_3');
img.style.display = img.style.display === 'block' ? 'none' : 'block';
var number=600851475143;
var t = new Date();
for(var i=3;i*i<=number;i+=2){
if(isPrime(i) && number%i==0){
var maxPrime = i;
}
setInterval(function(){time(t)},5000);
}
document.getElementById("p3").innerHTML = 'Il più grande divisiore primo di <span>'+number+"</span> è <span>" + maxPrime+"</span>";
}
function time(t){
return console.log(Date() - t);
}
If I put console.log(Date() - t);in the problem3() function it works, but I can't do Date()-t every 5 seconds, something like setInterval(Date()-t,5000)
This is a case where you might consider using the workers API. Instead of freezing the browser, let the job be done in the background and call back to the main thread when it's done.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers_API
JavaScript is not multithreaded. So we think of setInterval() as running a piece of code every n ms (5000 in your example). But that's not quite true. If there's already script running when the interval elapses, the best that can happen is the bit of code gets added to a queue to be executed - but nothing from that queue is going to run until the already-running script finishes.
So in rough terms that's why it's not working, but what to do? Well, if you want anything to happen before problem3() returns, then problem3() is going to have to make it happen in a synchronous way.
For example, you could create a lastOutputTime variable, initialize it to the current time, and on each iteration through the for loop compare the current time to the stored value. If 5 seconds have passed, output to console and update lastOutputTime.
Your algorithm should be improved to something like this:
function maxPrimeFactor(number) {
if (number == 0 || !Number.isInteger(number) ||
number > Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER) return NaN;
number = Math.abs(number);
while(number % 2 == 0) number /= 2;
for (var i = 3; i * i <= number; i += 2) {
while(number % i == 0) number /= i;
}
return number;
}
var number = 600851475143;
console.log('maxPrimeFactor(' + number + ') == ' + maxPrimeFactor(number));
If for some numbers you need too much time, then break the loop into smaller chunks and asynchronize. But never use setInterval for this, and especially never use setInterval inside a long loop. setInterval schedules some task to run every n milliseconds, so if you use it in a loop, after i iterations, the task will run i every n milliseconds! And setInterval is so problematic because it can freeze the browser if the task takes more than n milliseconds. You should use setTimeout instead.
However, this would be useless in this case. The algorithm above can detect that 304250263527209 (15 digits) is a prime almost instantly. Given that the maximum safe integer is 9007199254740991 (16 digits), I don't think you will have problems for any number.
If you say the algorithm takes so long, it may be because you are trying it with bigger numbers. But be aware JS numbers are 64-bit floating point numbers, and thus integers can't be represented accurately above Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER. You will get a wrong result anyways, so do not even try to calculate that.
In the case of the Project Euler #551, a brute-force approach would be
function sumOfDigits(n) {
var sum = 0;
while(n != 0) {
sum += n % 10;
n = Math.floor(n/10);
}
return sum;
}
function sumDigitsSeq(n) {
return new Promise(function(resolve) {
var i = 1;
var chunkSize = 1e5;
var sum = 1;
(function chunk() {
chunkSize = Math.min(chunkSize, n-i);
for (var j=0; j<chunkSize; ++j, ++i) {
sum += sumOfDigits(sum);
}
if (i >= n) return resolve(sum);
console.log('Please wait. sumDigitsSeq(' + i + ') == ' + sum);
setTimeout(chunk, 60);
})();
});
}
var number = 1e6;
sumDigitsSeq(number).then(function(result) {
console.log('Done! sumDigitsSeq(' + number + ') == ' + result);
});
Of course brute-force is not the appropriate way to solve the problem.
Related
I ran into the challenge where I need a function that returns a random number within a given range from 0 - X. Not only that, but I require the number returned to be unique; not duplicating numbers that have already been returned on previous calls to the function.
Optionally, when this is done (e.g. the range has been 'exhausted'), just return a random number within the range.
How would one go about doing this?
This should do it:
function makeRandomRange(x) {
var used = new Array(x),
exhausted = false;
return function getRandom() {
var random = Math.floor(Math.random() * x);
if (exhausted) {
return random;
} else {
for (var i=0; i<x; i++) {
random = (random + 1) % x;
if (random in used)
continue;
used[random] = true;
return random;
}
// no free place found
exhausted = true;
used = null; // free memory
return random;
}
};
}
Usage:
var generate = makeRandomRange(20);
var x1 = generate(),
x2 = generate(),
...
Although it works, it has no good performance when the x-th random is generated - it searches the whole list for a free place. This algorithm, a step-by-step Fisher–Yates shuffle, from the question Unique (non-repeating) random numbers in O(1)?, will perform better:
function makeRandomRange(x) {
var range = new Array(x),
pointer = x;
return function getRandom() {
pointer = (pointer-1+x) % x;
var random = Math.floor(Math.random() * pointer);
var num = (random in range) ? range[random] : random;
range[random] = (pointer in range) ? range[pointer] : pointer;
return range[pointer] = num;
};
}
(Demo at jsfiddle.net)
Extended version which does only generate one "group" of unique numbers:
function makeRandomRange(x) {
var range = new Array(x),
pointer = x;
return function getRandom() {
if (range) {
pointer--;
var random = Math.floor(Math.random() * pointer);
var num = (random in range) ? range[random] : random;
range[random] = (pointer in range) ? range[pointer] : pointer;
range[pointer] = num;
if (pointer <= 0) { // first x numbers had been unique
range = null; // free memory;
}
return num;
} else {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * x);
}
};
}
(Demo)
You got some great programming answer. Here's one with a more theoretical flavor to complete your panorama :-)
Your problem is called "sampling" or "subset sampling" and there are several ways you could do this. Let N be the range you are sampling frame (i.e., N=X+1) and M be the size of your sample (the number of elements you want to pick).
if N is much larger than M, you'll want to use an algorithm such as the one suggested by Bentley and Floyd in his column "Programming Pearls: a sample of brilliance" (temporarily available without ACM's lock screen here), I really recommend this as they explicitly give code and discuss in terms of hash tables, etc.; there a few neat tricks in there
if N is within the same range as M, then you might want to use the Fisher-Yates shuffle but stop after only M steps (instead of N)
if you don't really know then the algorithm on page 647 of Devroye's book on random generation is pretty fast.
I wrote this function. It keeps its own array with a history of generated numbers, preventing initial duplicates, continuing to output a random number if all numbers in the range have been outputted once:
// Generates a unique number from a range
// keeps track of generated numbers in a history array
// if all numbers in the range have been returned once, keep outputting random numbers within the range
var UniqueRandom = { NumHistory: new Array(), generate: function(maxNum) {
var current = Math.round(Math.random()*(maxNum-1));
if (maxNum > 1 && this.NumHistory.length > 0) {
if (this.NumHistory.length != maxNum) {
while($.inArray(current, this.NumHistory) != -1) { current = Math.round(Math.random()*(maxNum-1)); }
this.NumHistory.push(current);
return current;
} else {
//unique numbers done, continue outputting random numbers, or we could reset the history array (NumHistory = [];)
return current;
}
} else {
//first time only
this.NumHistory.push(current);
return current;
}
}
};
Here's a working Fiddle
I hope this is of use to someone!
Edit: as pointed out by Pointy below, it might get slow with a large range (here is a
fiddle, going over a range from 0-1000, which seems to run fine). However; I didn't require a very large range, so perhaps this function is indeed not suited if you look to generate and keep track of an enormous range.
You may try generating the number using the current date and time value which would make it unique. To make it within the range, you may have to use some mathematical function.
I have written the function which finds largest prime factor of some number. This function works but the problem is that it is too slow. e.g when I enter 600851475143 as a parameter, the process of finding largest prime factor lasts too long. How can I modify it so that it works faster?
Here is my code:
class test {
static addArray(someArray, member) {
for (var i = 0; i <= someArray.length; i++) {
if (i == someArray.length) {
someArray[i] = member;
return someArray;
}
}
}
static someLength(someArray) {
var i = 0;
while (someArray[i] !== undefined) {
var lastItem = i;
i++;
}
return i;
}
static testPrime(i) {
for (var k=2; k < i; k++) {
if (i % k == 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
var primeArray = [];
function largestPrime(n) {
for (var i=2; i < n; i++) {
//var k = n / i;
if (n % i == 0 && test.testPrime(i) == true) {
test.addArray(primeArray, i);
n == n / i;
}
}
return primeArray[test.someLength(primeArray) - 1];
}
document.write(largestPrime(600851475143));
Alright, before we go into that, let's get a little bit of theory sorted. The way you measure the time a particular piece of code takes to run is, mathematically, denoted by the O(n) notation (big-o notation) where n is the size of the input.
Your test prime function is of something called linear complexity meaning that it'll become linearly slow as the size of n (in this case, your number input) gets large.
For the number 15, the execution context is as follows:
15 % 2 == 0 (FALSE)
15 % 3 == 0 (TRUE)
...
15 % 14 == 0 (FALSE)
This means that for the number 100, there will be 98 (2 - 99) steps. And this will grow with time. Let's take your number into consideration: 600851475143. The program will execute 600851475143; the for-loop will get triggered 600,851,475,141 times.
Now, let's consider a clock cycle. Say each instruction takes 1 clock cycle, and a dumbed down version of your loop takes 2, the number 600851475143 will execute 1,201,702,950,286 times. Consider each clock cycle takes 0.0000000625 seconds (for a 16-MHz platform such as the Arduino), the time taken by that code alone is:
0.0000000625 * 1201702950286 = ~75,106 seconds
Or around 20 hours.
You see where I am going with this.
Your best best to get this program to work faster is to use a probabilistic test and confirm your findings using this number (or a BigInteger variant thereof).
Your approach is more linear, in the sense that the number of iterations for the for-loop to check for primality increases with an increasing number. You can plot the CPU cycle time along with the number and you'll realize that this is a rather inefficient way to do this.
I have discrete mathematics at my Uni, so just a word of warning - primality tests and their variants get really messy as you get into the utopia of faster and faster tests. It's a path filled with thorns of mathematics and you should have a seat belt while riding through the jungle! ;)
If you need more information on this, I would be glad to assist! I hope this helped! :)
Hi there I have been researching and trying to learn hw to check for the time complexity of certain algorithms.
I've seen this video which was very helpful.
That being said I wondered off and started trying to work out the Worsts Case and average case of certain algorithms.
Program #1: This is a calculator which calculates in RPN format.
function evaluate() {
var input = prompt("Please enter your input string\n\nExamples of input strings:\n\n\t1. 10 4 5 + *\n\t2. 10 4 5 + * 2 +\n\t3. 10 8 *");
var values = input.split(" ");
var array = new Array();
for (i in values) {
if (values[i] != "+" && values[i] != "*" && values[i] != "-" && values[i] != "/") {
array.push(parseInt(values[i]));
} else {
var operator = values[i];
var val2 = array.pop();
var val1 = array.pop();
switch (operator) {
case "+":
array.push(eval("val1 + val2"));
break;
case "*":
array.push(eval("val1 * val2"));
break;
case "-":
array.push(eval("val1 - val2"));
break;
case "/":
array.push(eval("val1 / val2"));
break;
}
}
}
if (input == "" || input == null) {
document.writeln("Oops, based on your input we have nothing to calculate for you!");
} else {
document.writeln("Your RPN calculation is: ");
document.writeln(array + " with a starting input string of: " + input);
}
}
From what I've understood in this case the the for loop in this case is running for a constant number of times and that is the length of the array then performs a O(1) instruction hence the function reduce has a Time Complexity of O(1) no matter the size of the array passed.
Program #2: Check whether the number is Prime or Not
function isPrime(num) {
if(num <= 1) return false;
const limit = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(num));
for(let i = 2; i <= limit; i++) {
if(num % i === 0) return false;
}
return true;
}
Since there is one for loop and the program needs to at least look at every number from 2 to the inputted number hence I think it is O(n).
For now these are the one's I've done with lots of thinking and am hoping they are correct. My question is there an easy way on how to check the time complexity of functions I've never seen before.
P.S I THINK they are correct. Please if they aren't specify which and why.
Thanks for your help :)
Update
Apparently I was wrong and lexicore corrected me the answers are:
#1 No, it is not O(1). Assuming one step takes O(1) and you have n steps where n is the length of the array, time complexity is O(n).
#2 No, it is not O(n). You cycle makes at most sqrt(n) steps, each step
O(1) so time complexity is O(sqrt(n)) here.
That being said I tried further and stumbled upon this in my textbook. It basically calculates an approximate square root.
#3
function sqrt(num) {
guess = num / 3;
do {
lastGuess = guess;
guess = (num / guess + guess) / 2;
while(Math.abs(lastGuess - guess));
return guess; /
Am I correct to say this is O(n) my reasoning is since we loop until an approx is found.
#4 from the user thanksd in the link he calculates the largest number in an array. Is it safe to say that the time complexity in this is O(n) since the largest number may be at the very last, and hence why O(n).
Thanks again
No, it is not O(1). Assuming one step takes O(1) and you have n steps where n is the length of the array, time complexity is O(n).
No, it is not O(n). You cycle makes at most sqrt(n) steps, each step O(1) so time complexity is O(sqrt(n)) here.
Hi there I have been researching and trying to learn how to check for the time complexity of certain algorithms. I've seen this video which was very helpful.
That being said I wondered off and started trying to work out the Worsts Case and an average case of certain algorithms.
1
I believe in the following snippet it is O(n) since to ind the value for sin we have to loop the entire array.
function mySin(x, iterNum) {
var mxx = -x*x;
var sin = 1;
var n = 0;
var term = 1;
for (var i = 1; i <= 2*iterNum; i++) {
n = n + 2;
term = term * mxx / ( n*(n+1) );
sin = sin + term
}
sin = x*sin;
console.log(sin + " = my function.");
console.log(Math.sin(x) + " math.sin");
}
Thanks again
2
function calculateFibonacciSum (num) {
if(cachedNumbers[num]) {
return cachedNumbers[num];
}
if(('number' === typeof num) && num <= 0) {
throw new Error ('Fibonnci series starts with 0. Please, enter any interget greater than or equal to 0');
}
else if(('number' === typeof num) && num === 0) {
return 0;
}
else if(('number' === typeof num) && (num === 1 || num === 2)) {
return 1;
}
else {
var value = calculateFibonacciSum(num-1) + calculateFibonacciSum(num-2);
cachedNumbers[num] = value;
return value;
}
}
While for this one I think it is also O(n) since in the first if/else statement the tc is O(1) since its contestant whilst the final else statement we must loop all the numbers and if the number is not calculated then call the function again (aka recurssion).
TIA
Both of these seem correct to me. Here's a bit more explanation:
1.
This is in fact O(n), as there are n iterations of the loop, the rest constant time; and n is proportional to iterNum
2.
This one is also linear time, but only since you cache the results of previous calculations. Otherwise it would be O(2n).
It is linear time since it essentially runs a loop down to the base cases (0 and 1). In fact, you could re-write this one using a loop instead of recursion.
I'm trying to solve a Coderbyte challenge, and I'm still trying to fully understand recursion.
Here's the problem: Using the JavaScript language, have the function AdditivePersistence(num) take the num parameter being passed which will always be a positive integer and return its additive persistence which is the number of times you must add the digits in num until you reach a single digit. For example: if num is 2718 then your program should return 2 because 2 + 7 + 1 + 8 = 18 and 1 + 8 = 9 and you stop at 9.
Here's the solution I put into jsfiddle.net to try out:
function AdditivePersistence(num) {
var count=0;
var sum=0;
var x = num.toString().split('');
for(var i=0; i<x.length; i++) {
sum += parseInt(x[i]);
}
if(sum.length == 1) {
return sum;
}
else {
return AdditivePersistence(sum);
}
}
alert(AdditivePersistence(19));
It tells me that there's too much recursion. Is there another "else" I could put that would basically just re-run the function until the sum was one digit?
One of the problems is that your if statement will never evaluate as 'true'. The reason being is that the sum variable is holding a number, and numbers don't have a length function. Also, as 'Barmar' pointed out, you haven't incremented the count variable, and neither are you returning the count variable.
Here's a solution that works using recursion.
function AdditivePersistence(num) {
var result = recursive(String(num).split('').reduce(function(x,y){return parseInt(x) + parseInt(y)}), 1);
function recursive(n, count){
c = count;
if(n < 10)return c;
else{
count += 1
return recursive(String(n).split('').reduce(function(x,y){return parseInt(x) + parseInt(y)}), count)
}
}
return num < 10 ? 0 : result
}
To fix the 'too much recursion problem',
if(sum.toString().length == 1)
However, as the others have said, your implementation does not return the Additive Persistence. Use James Farrell's answer to solve the Coderbyte challenge.