Related
let arr=[0,1];
let sum=0;
for(let i=2;i<4000000;i++) {
arr.push(arr[i-1]+arr[i-2]);
}
for (let i=0;i<arr.length;i++) {
if (arr[i]%2==0) {
sum+=arr[i];
}
}
console.log(sum);
By considering the terms in the Fibonacci sequence whose values do not
exceed four million, find the sum of the even-valued terms.
My solution to this question is wrong and I can't figure out why at all. I am not that experienced so please if anyone can explain in a simple way why my code is wrong. What can I do to fix it??
Note: I haven't hadn't included code in this answer because I figure the point of what you're doing is to learn to code these things. (Now you've gotten most of the way there, I did add a solution at the end.)
The problem is that your sums quickly go beyond the range of what JavaScript's number type can represent, reaching the point where they just are represented by Infinity. The number type only has 53 effective significant bits in which to hold numbers. You're exceeding that:
let seen4M = false;
let seenInfinity = false;
let arr=[0,1];
let sum=0;
for(let i=2;i<4000000;i++) {
const num = arr[i-1]+arr[i-2];
if (!seen4M && num > 4_000_000) {
console.log(`Too big: ${num}`);
seen4M = true;
} else if (!seenInfinity && !isFinite(num)) {
console.log(`Overflowed just after ${arr[i-1]}`);
seenInfinity = true;
}
arr.push(num);
}
for (let i=0;i<arr.length;i++) {
if (arr[i]%2==0) {
sum+=arr[i];
}
}
console.log(sum);
You're doing four million (minus two) loops, but the question asks you to consider the Fibonacci numbers whose values are less than or equal to four million (4M), which is a very different thing and is reached much more quickly. So instead of (nearly) 4M loops, stop when your code determines that the next number is > 4M.
Also note that there's no reason to use an array for this, and doing so will consume a lot of memory unnecessarily. Instead, just remember the penultimate and ultimate values, and shuffle them in the loop. Maintain sum in the first loop rather than using a second one.
In a comment you showed that you'd solved it using an array but couldn't see how to solve it without using an array. Here's how to do that (see comments):
// The penultimate (second-to-last) Fibonacci number we've done
let pen = 0;
// The ultimate (last) Fibonacci number we've done
let ult = 1;
// The sum so far
let sum = 0;
// A variable for each number as we go
let num;
// Create the next number and keep looping if it's less than or
// equal to four million
while ((num = pen + ult) <= 4_000_000) {
// We have a new number (`num`), count it if appropriate
if (num % 2 == 0) {
sum += num;
}
// Now that we have a new number, shuffle the last two:
// our ultimate number is our penultimate number, and
// our ultimate number is the new one
pen = ult;
ult = num;
}
console.log(sum);
I'm more of a media developer and not the best coder, but I find myself needing to learn javascript better. I'm creating a math card game where the human player and the automated player are each dealt 6 cards. Each player must combine (concatenate) three of the cards to make a top number and the other three for the bottom number. Those two numbers are then subtracted. For the automated player, I have to go through ever possible combination of the six cards, so when the two numbers are subtracted, it gets as close as possible to a target number. I'm not very good with arrays, so I started testing every possible combination and then comparing which one was closer (See example below). This is a very inefficient way of coding this, but I'm just not sure how to do it otherwise. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
The variables have already been declared.
alienTopNum = "" + alienNum1 + alienNum2 + alienNum3;
alienBottomNum = "" + alienNum4 + alienNum5 + alienNum6;
oldDiff = targetNum - (alienTopNum - alienBottomNum);
player.SetVar("AC1R1", alienNum1);
player.SetVar("AC2R1", alienNum2);
player.SetVar("AC3R1", alienNum3);
player.SetVar("AC4R1", alienNum4);
player.SetVar("AC4R1", alienNum5);
player.SetVar("AC4R1", alienNum6);
player.SetVar("ATR1", alienTopNum - alienBottomNum);
alienTopNum = "" + alienNum1 + alienNum2 + alienNum3;
alienBottomNum = "" + alienNum4 + alienNum6 + alienNum5;
newDiff = targetNum - (alienTopNum - alienBottomNum);
if (Math.abs(newDiff) < Math.abs(oldDiff)) {
oldDiff = newDiff;
player.SetVar("AC1R1", alienNum1);
player.SetVar("AC2R1", alienNum2);
player.SetVar("AC3R1", alienNum3);
player.SetVar("AC4R1", alienNum4);
player.SetVar("AC4R1", alienNum6);
player.SetVar("AC4R1", alienNum5);
player.SetVar("ATR1", alienTopNum - alienBottomNum);
}
etc....
Store the dealt cards in an array rather than in individual variables, because that makes them a lot easier to handle when generating permutations. You don't say what values the cards can have, but as an example, given a "hand" of [1,2,3,4,5,6] if you get the permutations as an array of arrays:
[ [1,2,3,4,5,6], [1,2,3,4,6,5], [1,2,3,5,4,6], ...etc. ]
Then you can loop through that to process each permutation to take the first three "cards" and last three to get the current iteration's two numbers, subtract them, and see if the result is closer to the target than previous iterations' results.
The following does that, making use of the array permutation function that I found in this answer to another question. I'm not going to explain that algorithm because you can easily google up various permutation algorithms for yourself, but I have put comments in my bestPlay() function to explain how I process the permutations to figure out which is the best score for a hand.
I haven't tried to use your player or player.SetVar() method, but hopefully if you study this you can adapt it to use with your objects.
You didn't say what values the cards could have, so I've assumed a deck of twenty cards that repeats the numbers 0-9 twice.
function bestPlay(hand, target) {
var perms = permutator(hand); // Get all permutations for hand
var best = perms[0]; // Use the first as initial best
var bestDiff = difference(best);
for (var i = 1; i < perms.length; i++) { // Loop over the rest of the permutations
var diff = difference(perms[i]); // Get diff for current permutation
if (Math.abs(target - diff) < Math.abs(target - bestDiff)) { // Check if
best = perms[i]; // current beats previous best
bestDiff = diff; // and if so make it new best
}
}
// Output the results for this hand:
console.log(`Hand: ${hand.join(" ")}`);
console.log(`Best Numbers: ${best.slice(0,3).join("")} ${best.slice(3).join("")}`);
console.log(`Difference: ${bestDiff}`);
}
var hands = deal();
var target = 112;
console.log(`Target: ${target}`);
bestPlay(hands[1], target);
bestPlay(hands[2], target);
function difference(cards) {
return Math.abs(cards.slice(0,3).join("") - cards.slice(3).join(""));
}
function deal() {
var cards = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0];
// shuffle
cards.sort(function() { return Math.random() - 0.5; });
// first hand is first six cards, second hand is next six
return {
1: cards.slice(0,6),
2: cards.slice(6, 12)
};
}
function permutator(inputArr) {
var results = [];
function permute(arr, memo) {
var cur, memo = memo || [];
for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
cur = arr.splice(i, 1);
if (arr.length === 0) {
results.push(memo.concat(cur));
}
permute(arr.slice(), memo.concat(cur));
arr.splice(i, 0, cur[0]);
}
return results;
}
return permute(inputArr);
}
If you click the "Run Code Snippet" button several times you'll see that sometimes a given hand has a combination of numbers that exactly matches the target, sometimes it doesn't.
https://www.hackerrank.com/contests/projecteuler/challenges/euler001
Here is the problem I'm confused what the parseInt readline statement
and also the the var n statement mainly..
when i run my code it seems to count up to ten twice probably a simple problem just not seeing it and was hoping I could get it explained so I can keep working on project euler problems
Thanks
function main() {
var t = parseInt(readLine());
var sum = 0;
var arr = [];
for(var a0 = 0; a0 < t; a0++){
var n = parseInt(readLine());
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (i % 3 === 0 || i % 5 === 0){
arr.push(i);
sum += i;
};
console.log(arr);
};
}
Maybe I'm not following exactly what is your question.
The parseInt is a javascript function.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/parseInt
The readLine() function is defined for you, it will give you "the next line" that was captured from standard in.
All (or most) of the hackerrank problems offer the input for the problem thru standard-in and expect the result from standard-out. So for this problem, hackerrank has created this boilerplate code for reading that input.
process.stdin.on('end', function () {
input_stdin_array = input_stdin.split("\n");
main();
});
There is filling the input_stdin_array array that is used on the readLine() function.
And about the
when i run my code it seems to count up to ten twice
The problem mentions:
First line contains T that denotes the number of test cases. This is followed by T lines, each containing an integer, N.
So you are printing the array T times (for the default test case is 2), so that why you probably see the "up to ten 2 times"
I hope this helped, and probably you could start with a couple of the https://www.hackerrank.com/domains/tutorials/30-days-of-code challenge so you get a better grasp of how to work on the problems.
Regards
Declare the array after the first for loop. You are using the same array for every test case, even though it still contains numbers from the previous test cases. Same for the sum.
for(var a0 = 0; a0 < t; a0++) {
var arr = [];
var sum = 0;
I want to understand the performance difference for constructing arrays. Running the following program, I am puzzled by the output below:
Time for range0: 521
Time for range1: 149
Time for range2: 1848
Time for range3: 8411
Time for range4: 3487
I don't understand why 3 takes longer than 4, while 1 takes shorter than 2. Also, seems the map function is very inefficient; what is the use of it?
function range0(start, count) {
var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
arr.push(start + i);
}
return arr;
}
function range1(start, count) {
var arr = new Array(count);
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
arr[i] = start + i;
}
return arr;
}
function range2(start, count) {
var arr = Array.apply(0, Array(count));
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
arr[i] = start + i;
}
return arr;
}
function range3(start, count) {
var arr = new Array(count);
return arr.map(function(element, index) {
return index + start;
});
}
function range4(start, count) {
var arr = Array.apply(0, Array(count));
return arr.map(function(element, index) {
return index + start;
});
}
function profile(range) {
var iterations = 100000,
start = 0, count = 1000,
startTime, endTime, finalTime;
startTime = performance.now();
for (var i = 0; i < iterations; ++i) {
range(start, count);
}
endTime = performance.now();
finalTime = (endTime - startTime);
console.log(range.name + ': ' + finalTime + ' ms');
}
[range0, range1, range2, range3, range4].forEach(profile);
I don't understand why 3 takes longer than 4
Me neither. It is a surprising result, given my superficial analysis and the results I obtained by profiling the code. On my computer running Google Chrome 50, range4 is twice as slow compared to range3.
I'd have to study the Javascript implementation you are using in order to figure out why that happens.
while 1 takes shorter than 2.
range1 executes faster because it uses a loop and optimizes memory allocations, while range2 uses functions and does unnecessary memory allocations.
Also, seems the map function is very inefficient; what is the use of it?
The map function is used to compute a new Array based on the values of an existing one.
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5].map(number => number * number);
// [1, 4, 9, 16, 25]
On my computer
Time for range0: 783
Time for range1: 287
Time for range2: 10541
Time for range3: 14981
Time for range4: 28243
My results reflect my expectations regarding the performance of each function.
A superficial analysis of each function
range0
Creates an Array and populates it via a loop. It is the most simple and straightforward code possible. I suppose it could be understood as the baseline for performance comparison.
range1
Uses the Array constructor with a length parameter. This greatly optimizes the underlying memory allocation required to store the elements. Since the exact number of elements is known beforehand, the memory does not have to be reallocated as the number of elements grows; the exact amount of memory needed to store all elements can be allocated exactly once, when the Array is instantiated.
range2
Applies an empty arguments list to the constructor function, with this set to the number 0. This is semantically equivalent to Array() – the fact the arguments list was created with a count parameter has no bearing on the result of the function application. In fact, it needlessly wastes time allocating memory for an empty arguments list.
You probably meant to use call:
Array.call(null, count)
range3
Like range1, but uses map with a function instead of a loop. The initial memory allocation is optimized, but the overhead of calling the function count times is likely to be huge.
In addition, map generates a new Array instance. Since that instance also has count elements, it would make sense to optimize that memory allocation as well, however it is unclear to me whether that actually happens. Nevertheless, two separate memory allocations are taking place, instead of just one as in range1.
range4
Combines all the inefficiencies of range2 and range3.
Amazingly, it executes faster than range3 on your computer. It's unclear to me why that happened. I suppose one would have to investigate your Javascript particular implementation in order to figure it out.
I'm writing a library for WebWorkers, and I want to test the difference between running a script in the main page thread, versus in one or more workers. The problem is: I can't find out of hand a short function which will strain my browser enough that I can observe the difference.
A quick search didn't return much, but it might just be that I don't really know what to search for; usually I try to optimise my code, not make it slower...
I'm looking for algorithms or patterns that can be easily implemented in pure Javascript, that do not depend on the DOM or XHR, and which can have an argument passed to limit or specify how far the calculation goes (no infinite algorithms); 1s < avg time < 10s.
Extra points if it can be built without recursion and if it does not incur a significant memory hog while still being as processor intensive as possible.
Try using the obvious (and bad) recursive implementation for the Fibonacci sequence:
function fib(x) {
if (x <= 0) return 0;
if (x == 1) return 1;
return fib(x-1) + fib(x-2);
}
Calling it with values of ~30 to ~35 (depending entirely on your system) should produce good "slow down" times in the range you seek. The call stack shouldn't get very deep and the algorithm is something like O(2^n).
/**
* Block CPU for the given amount of seconds
* #param {Number} [seconds]
*/
function slowdown(seconds = 0.5) {
const start = (new Date()).getTime()
while ((new Date()).getTime() - start < seconds * 1000){}
}
slowdown(2)
console.log('done')
Calling this method will slow code down for the given amount of seconds (with ~200ms precision).
Generate an array of numbers in reverse order and sort it.
var slowDown = function(n){
var arr = [];
for(var i = n; i >= 0; i--){
arr.push(i);
}
arr.sort(function(a,b){
return a - b;
});
return arr;
}
This can be called like so:
slowDown(100000);
Or whatever number you want to use.
Check out the benchmarking code referenced by the Google V8 Javascript Engine.
For some reason Bogosort comes to mind. Basically it's a sorting algorithm that consists of:
while not list.isInOrder():
list.randomize()
It has an average complexity of O(n * n!) with little memory, so it should slow things down pretty good.
The main downside is that its running time can be anywhere from O(n) to O(inf) (though really, O(inf) is pretty unlikely).
Everyone seems determined to be complicated. Why not this?
function waste_time(amount) {
for(var i = 0; i < amount; i++);
}
If you're concerned the browser will optimize the loop out of existence entirely, you can make it marginally more complicated:
function waste_time(amount) {
var tot = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < amount; i++)
tot += i;
}
Compute lots of square roots manually?
function sqrt(number, maxDecimal) {
var cDecimal = -1;
var cNumber = 0;
var direction = -1;
while(cNumber * cNumber !== number && cDecimal < maxDecimal) {
direction = -direction;
cDecimal++;
while((cNumber * cNumber - number) / Math.abs(cNumber * cNumber - number) === direction) cNumber += direction * Math.pow(10, -cDecimal);
}
return Math.abs(cNumber);
}
function performTest() {
for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
sqrt(i, 3);
}
}
Maybe this is what you are looking for:
var threadTest = function(durationMs, outputFkt, outputInterval) {
var startDateTime = (new Date()).getTime();
counter = 0,
testDateTime = null,
since = 0,
lastSince = -1;
do {
testDateTime = (new Date()).getTime();
counter++;
since = testDateTime - startDateTime;
if(typeof outputFkt != 'undefined' && lastSince != since && testDateTime % outputInterval == 0) {
outputFkt(counter, since);
lastSince = since;
}
} while(durationMs > since);
if(typeof outputFkt != 'undefined') {
outputFkt(counter, since);
}
return counter;
}
This method will simply repeat a check in a loop
durationMS - duartion it should run in miliseconds
OPTIONAL:
outputFkt - a callback method, for logging purpose function(currentCount, milisecondsSinceStart)
outputInterval - intervall the output function will be called
I figured since you do not want to test a real function, and even NP-Hard Problems have a ratio between input length and time this could be a easy way. You can measure performance at any interval and of course receive the number of loops as a return value, so you can easily measure how much threads interfere each others performance, with the callback even on a per cycle basis.
As an example here is how i called it (jQuery and Dom usage are here, but as you can see optional)
$(document).ready(function() {
var outputFkt = function(counter, since) {
$('body').append('<p>'+counter+', since '+since+'</p>');
};
threadTest(1000, outputFkt, 20);
});
A last Warning: Of course this function can not be more exact than JS itself. Since modern Browsers can do much more than one cycle in one Milisecond, there will be a little tail that gets cut.
Update
Thinking about it... actually using the ouputFkt callback for more than just output could give great insight. You could pass a method that uses some shared properties, or you could use it to test great memory usage.