I'm using Nerdamer.solve() to get some linear equation roots. It's working fine but I wonder if there is any way to get only the first 4 decimals of every solution.
EquationSolver.js
//First step, using Nerdamer to solve the equation stored in value
sol_raw = this.nerdamer.solve(value,'x');
xs = this.nerdamer(sol_raw.toString());
//Second step, using Function() in order to evaluate the solutions
solution= Function('return ' + this.nerdamer(xs).evaluate().toString())()
At this point, I'm getting correct results like: 1.74343434. Since I'm rendering the results using Katex, I would like to know where to implement .toFixed(4) or any pseudo way (maybe a Nerdamer method to use n number of decimals on .evaluate()?).
Note.
The result (solution) is a string like [1.74343434, 0.434343, ...] so I could transform it into a float variable and then use .toFixed() but this not an easy solution because the number of roots depends on the equation's grade.
Nerdamer's documentation about evaluate: documentation
#CoronelV,
Another possible approach is to create a toFixed function for formatting the numbers which would take into account real and complex solutions and then calling it on your solutions. Here's a more generalized approach.
var toFixed = function(value, n) {
var img = Number(nerdamer.imagpart(value).text()).toFixed(n);
var real = Number(nerdamer.realpart(value).text()).toFixed(n);
// Format the number assuming i denotes imaginary in your case
var formatted = '';
if(real !== '0.0000') {
formatted += real;
}
if(img !== '0.0000') {
// Put the plus sign betweent the real and imaginary
if(img.charAt(0) !== '-' && formatted) {
formatted += '+';
}
// Assuming you're using i and not j for instance
formatted += img+'i';
}
return formatted;
};
So in your case this would be become something like:
sol_raw = this.nerdamer.solve(value,'x');
xs = this.nerdamer(sol_raw.toString()).each(function(solution) {
roundedSolutions.push(toFixed(solution, 4));
});
this.setState({
solution: roundedSolution.join(''),
equation:value})
This would possibly eliminate the need for your try catch block.
Since the solution is rendered using KaTeX, it's possible rounding the solution via Latex's package, but its even simplest taking the suggestion of #Dj Burb.
Here is my approach:
try {
sol_raw = this.nerdamer.solve(value,'x');
xs = this.nerdamer(sol_raw.toString());
Function('return '+ this.nerdamer(xs).evaluate().toString())().forEach(element => {
roundedSolution.push(element.toFixed(4)) });
} catch (e) {
}
this.setState({
solution: roundedSolution.join(''),
equation:value})
The use of try catch is imperative because while writing the equation, solution.toFixed() returns an error.
Related
I am working on a project where I require to format incoming numbers in the following way:
###.###
However I noticed some results I didn't expect.
The following works in the sense that I don't get an error:
console.log(07);
// or in my case:
console.log(007);
Of course, it will not retain the '00' in the value itself, since that value is effectively 7.
The same goes for the following:
console.log(7.0);
// or in my case:
console.log(7.000);
JavaScript understands what I am doing, but in the end the actual value will be 7, which can be proven with the following:
const leadingValue = 007;
const trailingValue = 7.00;
console.log(leadingValue, trailingValue); // both are exactly 7
But what I find curious is the following: the moment I combine these two I get a syntax error:
// but not this:
console.log(007.000);
1) Can someone explain why this isn't working?
I'm trying to find a solution to store numbers/floats with the exact precision without using string.
2) Is there any way in JS/NodeJS or even TypeScript to do this without using strings?
What I currently want to do is to receive the input, scan for the format and store that as a separate property and then parse the incoming value since parseInt('007.000') does work. And when the user wants to get this value return it back to the user... in a string.. unfortunately.
1) 007.000 is a syntax error because 007 is an octal integer literal, to which you're then appending a floating point part. (Try console.log(010). This prints 8.)
2) Here's how you can achieve your formatting using Intl.NumberFormat...
var myformat = new Intl.NumberFormat('en-US', {
minimumIntegerDigits: 3,
minimumFractionDigits: 3
});
console.log(myformat.format(7)); // prints 007.000
Hi
You can use an aproach that uses string funtions .split .padStart and .padEnd
Search on MDN
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/split
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/padStart
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/String/padEnd
Here you have an example:
const x = 12.1;
function formatNumber( unformatedNumber) {
const desiredDecimalPad = 3;
const desiredNonDecimalPad = 3;
const unformatedNumberString = unformatedNumber.toString();
const unformatedNumberArr = unformatedNumberString.split('.');
const decimalStartPadded = unformatedNumberArr[0].padStart(desiredDecimalPad, '0');
const nonDecimalEndPadded = unformatedNumberArr[1].padEnd(desiredNonDecimalPad, '0');
const formatedNumberString = decimalStartPadded + '.' + nonDecimalEndPadded;
return formatedNumberString;
}
console.log(formatNumber(x))
I understand the syntax of ES6 tagged templates. What I don't see is the practical usability. When is it better than passing an object parameter, like the settings in jQuery's AJAX? $.ajax('url', { /*this guy here*/ })
Right now I only see the tricky syntax but I don't see why I would need/use it. I also found that the TypeScript team chose to implement it (in 1.5) before other important features. What is the concept behind tagged string templates?
You can use tagged templates to build APIs that are more expressive than regular function calls.
For example, I'm working on a proof-of-concept library for SQL queries on JS arrays:
let admins = sql`SELECT name, id FROM ${users}
WHERE ${user => user.roles.indexOf('admin') >= 0}`
Notice it has nothing to do with String interpolation; it uses tagged templates for readability. It would be hard to construct something that reads as intuitively with plain function calls - I guess you'd have something like this:
let admins = sql("SELECT name, id FROM $users WHERE $filter",
{ $users: users, $filter: (user) => user.roles.contains('admin') })
This example is just a fun side project, but I think it shows some of the benefits of tagged templates.
Another example, maybe more obvious, is i18n - a tagged template could insert locale-sensitive versions of your input.
See Sitepoint's explanation:
The final stage of template strings specification is about adding a custom function before the string itself to create a tagged template string.
...
For instance, here is a piece of code to block strings that try to inject custom DOM elements:
var items = [];
items.push("banana");
items.push("tomato");
items.push("light saber");
var total = "Trying to hijack your site <BR>";
var myTagFunction = function (strings,...values) {
var output = "";
for (var index = 0; index < values.length; index++) {
var valueString = values[index].toString();
if (valueString.indexOf(">") !== -1) {
// Far more complex tests can be implemented here :)
return "String analyzed and refused!";
}
output += strings[index] + values[index];
}
output += strings[index]
return output;
}
result.innerHTML = myTagFunction `You have ${items.length} item(s) in your basket for a total of $${total}`;
Tagged template strings can used for a lot of things like security, localization, creating your own domain specific language, etc.
They're useful because the function can (almost) completely define the meaning of the text inside it (almost = other than placeholders). I like to use the example of Steven Levithan's XRegExp library. It's awkward to use regular expressions defined as strings, because you have to double-escape things: Once for the string literal, and once for regex. This is one of the reasons we have regular expression literals in JavaScript.
For instance, suppose I'm doing maintenance on a site and I find this:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = /^\w+$/;
...which is meant to check if a string contains only "letters." Two problems: A) There are thousands of "word" characters across the realm of human language that \w doesn't recognize, because its definition is English-centric; and B) It includes _, which many (including the Unicode consortium) would argue is not a "letter."
Suppose in my work I've introduced XRegExp to the codebase. Since I know it supports \pL (\p for Unicode categories, and L for "letter"), I might quickly swap this in:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\pL+$"); // WRONG
Then I wonder why it didn't work, *facepalm*, and go back and escape that backslash, since it's being consumed by the string literal:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\\pL+$");
// ---------------------------------^
What a pain. Suppose I could write the actual regular expression without worrying about double-escaping?
I can: With a tagged template function. I can put this in my standard lib:
function xrex(strings, ...values) {
const raw = strings.raw;
let result = "";
for (let i = 0; i < raw.length; ++i) {
result += raw[i];
if (i < values.length) { // `values` always has one fewer entry
result += values[i];
}
}
return XRegExp(result);
}
Or alternately, this is a valid use case for reduce, and we can use destructuring in the argument list:
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
return XRegExp(
raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
)
);
}
And then I can happily write:
const isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\pL+$`;
Example:
// My tag function (defined once, then reused)
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
const result = raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
);
console.log("Creating with:", result);
return XRegExp(result);
}
// Using it, with a couple of substitutions to prove to myself they work
let category = "L"; // L: Letter
let maybeEol = "$";
let isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\p${category}+${maybeEol}`;
function test(str) {
console.log(str + ": " + isSingleUnicodeWord.test(str));
}
test("Русский"); // true
test("日本語"); // true
test("العربية"); // true
test("foo bar"); // false
test("$£"); // false
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/xregexp/3.2.0/xregexp-all.min.js"></script>
The only thing I have to remember now is that ${...} is special because it's a placeholder. In this specific case, it's not a problem, I'm unlikely to want to apply a quantifier to the end-of-input assertion, but that's a coincidence...
I understand the syntax of ES6 tagged templates. What I don't see is the practical usability. When is it better than passing an object parameter, like the settings in jQuery's AJAX? $.ajax('url', { /*this guy here*/ })
Right now I only see the tricky syntax but I don't see why I would need/use it. I also found that the TypeScript team chose to implement it (in 1.5) before other important features. What is the concept behind tagged string templates?
You can use tagged templates to build APIs that are more expressive than regular function calls.
For example, I'm working on a proof-of-concept library for SQL queries on JS arrays:
let admins = sql`SELECT name, id FROM ${users}
WHERE ${user => user.roles.indexOf('admin') >= 0}`
Notice it has nothing to do with String interpolation; it uses tagged templates for readability. It would be hard to construct something that reads as intuitively with plain function calls - I guess you'd have something like this:
let admins = sql("SELECT name, id FROM $users WHERE $filter",
{ $users: users, $filter: (user) => user.roles.contains('admin') })
This example is just a fun side project, but I think it shows some of the benefits of tagged templates.
Another example, maybe more obvious, is i18n - a tagged template could insert locale-sensitive versions of your input.
See Sitepoint's explanation:
The final stage of template strings specification is about adding a custom function before the string itself to create a tagged template string.
...
For instance, here is a piece of code to block strings that try to inject custom DOM elements:
var items = [];
items.push("banana");
items.push("tomato");
items.push("light saber");
var total = "Trying to hijack your site <BR>";
var myTagFunction = function (strings,...values) {
var output = "";
for (var index = 0; index < values.length; index++) {
var valueString = values[index].toString();
if (valueString.indexOf(">") !== -1) {
// Far more complex tests can be implemented here :)
return "String analyzed and refused!";
}
output += strings[index] + values[index];
}
output += strings[index]
return output;
}
result.innerHTML = myTagFunction `You have ${items.length} item(s) in your basket for a total of $${total}`;
Tagged template strings can used for a lot of things like security, localization, creating your own domain specific language, etc.
They're useful because the function can (almost) completely define the meaning of the text inside it (almost = other than placeholders). I like to use the example of Steven Levithan's XRegExp library. It's awkward to use regular expressions defined as strings, because you have to double-escape things: Once for the string literal, and once for regex. This is one of the reasons we have regular expression literals in JavaScript.
For instance, suppose I'm doing maintenance on a site and I find this:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = /^\w+$/;
...which is meant to check if a string contains only "letters." Two problems: A) There are thousands of "word" characters across the realm of human language that \w doesn't recognize, because its definition is English-centric; and B) It includes _, which many (including the Unicode consortium) would argue is not a "letter."
Suppose in my work I've introduced XRegExp to the codebase. Since I know it supports \pL (\p for Unicode categories, and L for "letter"), I might quickly swap this in:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\pL+$"); // WRONG
Then I wonder why it didn't work, *facepalm*, and go back and escape that backslash, since it's being consumed by the string literal:
var isSingleUnicodeWord = XRegExp("^\\pL+$");
// ---------------------------------^
What a pain. Suppose I could write the actual regular expression without worrying about double-escaping?
I can: With a tagged template function. I can put this in my standard lib:
function xrex(strings, ...values) {
const raw = strings.raw;
let result = "";
for (let i = 0; i < raw.length; ++i) {
result += raw[i];
if (i < values.length) { // `values` always has one fewer entry
result += values[i];
}
}
return XRegExp(result);
}
Or alternately, this is a valid use case for reduce, and we can use destructuring in the argument list:
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
return XRegExp(
raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
)
);
}
And then I can happily write:
const isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\pL+$`;
Example:
// My tag function (defined once, then reused)
function xrex({raw}, ...values) {
const result = raw.reduce(
(acc, str, index) => acc + str + (index < values.length ? values[index] : ""),
""
);
console.log("Creating with:", result);
return XRegExp(result);
}
// Using it, with a couple of substitutions to prove to myself they work
let category = "L"; // L: Letter
let maybeEol = "$";
let isSingleUnicodeWord = xrex`^\p${category}+${maybeEol}`;
function test(str) {
console.log(str + ": " + isSingleUnicodeWord.test(str));
}
test("Русский"); // true
test("日本語"); // true
test("العربية"); // true
test("foo bar"); // false
test("$£"); // false
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/xregexp/3.2.0/xregexp-all.min.js"></script>
The only thing I have to remember now is that ${...} is special because it's a placeholder. In this specific case, it's not a problem, I'm unlikely to want to apply a quantifier to the end-of-input assertion, but that's a coincidence...
How to convert 1e+30 to 1000000000000000000000000000000
I want number as it is entered by User do not convert like 1e+30.
How can achieve this? Is there any way to display actual digits after parse it to float or int?
The core library doesn't give you any support for numbers that don't fit into the native number type, so you'll probably want to use a third party library to help you with large decimals.
For example, https://mikemcl.github.io/decimal.js/
new Decimal('1e+30').toFixed()
// "1000000000000000000000000000000"
You may use toLocaleString
(1000000000000000000000000000000).toLocaleString("en-US", { useGrouping: false })
You can make use of new Array() and String.replace, but it will only be in the form of String
function toNum(n) {
var nStr = (n + "");
if(nStr.indexOf(".") > -1)
nStr = nStr.replace(".","").replace(/\d+$/, function(m){ return --m; });
return nStr.replace(/(\d+)e\+?(\d+)/, function(m, g1, g2){
return g1 + new Array(+g2).join("0") + "0";
})
}
console.log(toNum(1e+30)); // "1000000000000000000000000000000"
Now it's more robust as it doesn't fail even if a really huge number such as 12e100 which will be converted to 1.2e+101, is provided as the . is removed and the last set of digits decremented once. But still 100% accuracy can't be ensured but that is because of limitations of floatation maths in javascript.
I need a js function that show the original count of decimals in a number. For example:
value display
2.31 2
1.0 1
2.3500 4
The problem is that i dont know how get the count of decimals.
I have that code:
value=2.3500;
return CountofDecimals(value); // must be display 4:
Anything help??? Thanks :P
That's not possible. There's no difference between the number 3.5 and 3.50 in JavaScript, or indeed in any other common programming language.
If you actually mean they're strings (value = '2.3500' rather than value = 2.3500) then you can use indexOf:
var decimalPlaces = value.length - value.indexOf('.') - 1;
Caveat: I hate this answer, I don't really advocate it
Don't store it as a number, store it as a string. This can result in "stringly typed" code quickly so it is inadvisable. It is a workaround since JavaScript uses a float as the number type.
Alternatively store it as an Object and parse out the format via a function call:
{ value = "1.2345", decimal = 4}
and use that to create the correct number format. If I had the requirement this is probably the hack I'd use. Or, I would have my server return the formatted string as you can pull that off easily server side.
If it would be possible take these numbers as strings, it definitely is possible..And quite simple actually.
function countDecimals(string){
var delimiters = [",","."];
for(var i = 0; i<delimiters.length; i++){
if(string.indexOf(delimiters[i])==-1) continue;
else{
return string.substring(string.indexOf(delimiters[i])+1).length;
}
}
}
You could use this function:
function decimalplaces(number)
{
numberastring = number.toString(10);
decimalpoint = numberastring.indexOf(".");
if(decimalpoint == -1)
{
return 0;
}
else
{
return numberastring.length - decimalpoint - 1;
}
}