Develop Reference

Max Value for xorShift128+ (or what's wrong with my implementation)

I'm reading up random number generators and tweaked an implementation of the xorShift128+ algorithm in javascript. I understand how bit shift operators work and how the xor bit operations work, though I'm still learning why they're useful, and why their use in xorShift128+ produces a uniform random distribution.
But more to the point, I just need to know what the range of possible numbers it works with is. It outputs integers, I'm trying to get numbers between 0 and 1. Inductively, I see that it's in the order of 2**32. So I use that as the divisor. However, when I check for uniformity, I notice a bias in the numbers. They seem to be repelled in the areas of 0.2 <= val < 0.3 and val >= 0.7.
So I've either got the calibrating divisor wrong, I've got my implementation wrong, or I'm confused about the uniformity property. Any help would be appreciated. Below is my code and my analysis:
function xorShift128p(seed) {
// seeds
this.x = seed || this.x || 1;
this.y = seed + 1 || this.y || 2;
// swap seeds
let x = this.y;
let y = this.x;
// bit manipulations that are still a little
// obscure to me as to why they work well
y ^= y << 23;
y ^= y >> 17;
y ^= x;
y ^= x >> 26;
// reset seeds
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
// output, with calibration for 0-1 range.
let realResult = x + y;
let myCalibration = realResult / (2**32);
return myCalibration;
}
// produce an array of 100 random numbers using xorShift128p
let rands =
[...new Array(100).keys()]
.map(() => xorShift128p());
// bin the random numbers into units of 0.1
let binCounts =
[...new Array(10).keys()]
.map(key =>
`lead: ${(key / 10).toFixed(1)}, ` +
`count: ${rands.filter(r => r >= key / 10 && r < (key + 1) / 10).length}`
);
// notice the non-uniformity
console.log(binCounts);

In xorshift128+, x and y are supposed to be uint64_t. That causes a number of differences between this implementation and the actual xorshift128+:
The right shifts are arithmetic shifts but should have been logical shifts. I don't know how bad that is, but it's definitely different.
The final addition is supposed be modular, but here it is a (floating point) double precision sum. That's very bad.
There aren't 128 bits of state. This makes the PRNG less strong but in a way that is non-trivial to detect.
The final sum not being modular makes the result non-uniform and with a different range than the scale factor assumes: the sum of two IID numbers in [-231 .. 231-1] (the result of using Number instead of uint64_t) is in [-232 .. 232-2] and biased towards numbers of smaller magnitude. That's the same kind of effect as the sum of two fair die rolls. This could be worked around by adding >>> 0, but then the code still would not implement xorshift128+.
Fixing the fundamental issue would be a bit painful, requiring the 64bit integer operations to be emulated. There are some libraries that can do that job for you.

Javascript round / floor / toFixed on decimals

I am having an issue with how javascript is dividing and rounding the number.
I have two float , 0.11 and 0.12
I want to calculate the mid of these two numbers and round it to the nearest highest value with 2 decimal price.
For example, if I do this on Calculator
0.11+0.12 / 2 = 0.115, and I need to round it to 0.12 as it is mid or above mid.
If I do this with Javascript, I am not getting an accurate number
Example,
var high = parseFloat(0.12);
var low = parseFloat(0.11);
var mid = (high + low) / 2;
document.getElementById("demo1").innerHTML = mid;
document.getElementById("demo2").innerHTML = mid.toFixed(2);
var another = mid.toFixed(3);
document.getElementById("demo3").innerHTML =another;
var last = Math.floor(another)
document.getElementById("demo4").innerHTML =last;
http://jsfiddle.net/gzqwbp6c/9/
Any input would be appreciated.

As the 0.11499999999999999 shows, the result is very slightly less than 0.115. This is because 0.11 and 0.12 cannot be represented with perfect accuracy using floating-point-numbers.
When you don't want to deal with floating-point-error, it's often easier to work with integers directly. Small integers are represented exactly by floating point numbers.
You can multiply by 100 before, and round, to ensure your numbers are integers, and only divide after you get your final result:
var a = Math.round(100 * parseFloat("0.12")) // 12
var b = Math.round(100 * parseFloat("0.11")) // 11
var mid = (a + b) / 2 // 11.5.
// 0.5 can be represented exactly in floating point for small numbers.
var midRound = (Math.round(mid) / 100).toFixed(2) // "0.12"

Need to multiply (workout on int part, i.e. find mid, and divide to reconvert to origin):
function myMid(high,low, precision){
var precision=2
var convFactor = Math.pow(10,precision);
return
(Math.round((low*convFactor+high*convFactor)/2)/convFactor).toFixed(precision);
}
Float is not precise, you cant rely on that, you'll have unexpected results.

everything *100 to prevent inaccuracies
.toFixed() does the rounding
var a = 0.11;
var b = 0.12;
c = parseFloat((((a*100) + (b*100))/200).toFixed(2));
console.log(c);

Get a random number focused on center

Is it possible to get a random number between 1-100 and keep the results mainly within the 40-60 range? I mean, it will go out of that range rarely, but I want it to be mainly within that range... Is it possible with JavaScript/jQuery?
Right now I'm just using the basic Math.random() * 100 + 1.

The simplest way would be to generate two random numbers from 0-50 and add them together.
This gives a distribution biased towards 50, in the same way rolling two dice biases towards 7.
In fact, by using a larger number of "dice" (as #Falco suggests), you can make a closer approximation to a bell-curve:
function weightedRandom(max, numDice) {
let num = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < numDice; i++) {
num += Math.random() * (max/numDice);
}
return num;
}
JSFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/797qhcza/1/

You have some good answers here that give specific solutions; let me describe for you the general solution. The problem is:
I have a source of more-or-less uniformly distributed random numbers between 0 and 1.
I wish to produce a sequence of random numbers that follow a different distribution.
The general solution to this problem is to work out the quantile function of your desired distribution, and then apply the quantile function to the output of your uniform source.
The quantile function is the inverse of the integral of your desired distribution function. The distribution function is the function where the area under a portion of the curve is equal to the probability that the randomly-chosen item will be in that portion.
I give an example of how to do so here:
http://ericlippert.com/2012/02/21/generating-random-non-uniform-data/
The code in there is in C#, but the principles apply to any language; it should be straightforward to adapt the solution to JavaScript.

Taking arrays of numbers, etc. isn't efficient. You should take a mapping which takes a random number between 0 to 100 and maps to the distribution you need. So in your case, you could take f(x)=-(1/25)x2+4x to get a distribution with the most values in the middle of your range.

I might do something like setup a "chance" for the number to be allowed to go "out of bounds". In this example, a 20% chance the number will be 1-100, otherwise, 40-60:
$(function () {
$('button').click(function () {
var outOfBoundsChance = .2;
var num = 0;
if (Math.random() <= outOfBoundsChance) {
num = getRandomInt(1, 100);
} else {
num = getRandomInt(40, 60);
}
$('#out').text(num);
});
function getRandomInt(min, max) {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min + 1)) + min;
}
});
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<button>Generate</button>
<div id="out"></div>
fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/kbv39s9w/

I needed to solve this problem a few years ago and my solution was easier than any of the other answers.
I generated 3 randoms between the bounds and averaged them. This pulls the result towards the centre but leaves it completely possible to reach the extremities.

It looks stupid but you can use rand twice:
var choice = Math.random() * 3;
var result;
if (choice < 2){
result = Math.random() * 20 + 40; //you have 2/3 chance to go there
}
else {
result = Math.random() * 100 + 1;
}

Sure it is possible. Make a random 1-100. If the number is <30 then generate number in range 1-100 if not generate in range 40-60.

There is a lot of different ways to generate such random numbers. One way to do it is to compute the sum of multiple uniformly random numbers. How many random numbers you sum and what their range is will determine how the final distribution will look.
The more numbers you sum up, the more it will be biased towards the center. Using the sum of 1 random number was already proposed in your question, but as you notice is not biased towards the center of the range. Other answers have propose using the sum of 2 random numbers or the sum of 3 random numbers.
You can get even more bias towards the center of the range by taking the sum of more random numbers. At the extreme you could take the sum of 99 random numbers which each were either 0 or 1. That would be a binomial distribution. (Binomial distributions can in some sense be seen as the discrete version of normal distributions). This can still in theory cover the full range, but it has so much bias towards the center that you should never expect to see it reach the endpoints.
This approach means you can tweak just how much bias you want.

What about using something like this:
var loops = 10;
var tries = 10;
var div = $("#results").html(random());
function random() {
var values = "";
for(var i=0; i < loops; i++) {
var numTries = tries;
do {
var num = Math.floor((Math.random() * 100) + 1);
numTries--;
}
while((num < 40 || num >60) && numTries > 1)
values += num + "<br/>";
}
return values;
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="results"></div>
The way I've coded it allows you to set a couple of variables:
loops = number of results
tries = number of times the function will try to get a number between 40-60 before it stops running through the while loop
Added bonus: It uses do while!!! Awesomeness at its best

You can write a function that maps random values between [0, 1) to [1, 100] according to weight. Consider this example:
Here, the value 0.95 maps to value between [61, 100].
In fact we have .05 / .1 = 0.5, which, when mapped to [61, 100], yields 81.
Here is the function:
/*
* Function that returns a function that maps random number to value according to map of probability
*/
function createDistributionFunction(data) {
// cache data + some pre-calculations
var cache = [];
var i;
for (i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
cache[i] = {};
cache[i].valueMin = data[i].values[0];
cache[i].valueMax = data[i].values[1];
cache[i].rangeMin = i === 0 ? 0 : cache[i - 1].rangeMax;
cache[i].rangeMax = cache[i].rangeMin + data[i].weight;
}
return function(random) {
var value;
for (i = 0; i < cache.length; i++) {
// this maps random number to the bracket and the value inside that bracket
if (cache[i].rangeMin <= random && random < cache[i].rangeMax) {
value = (random - cache[i].rangeMin) / (cache[i].rangeMax - cache[i].rangeMin);
value *= cache[i].valueMax - cache[i].valueMin + 1;
value += cache[i].valueMin;
return Math.floor(value);
}
}
};
}
/*
* Example usage
*/
var distributionFunction = createDistributionFunction([
{ weight: 0.1, values: [1, 40] },
{ weight: 0.8, values: [41, 60] },
{ weight: 0.1, values: [61, 100] }
]);
/*
* Test the example and draw results using Google charts API
*/
function testAndDrawResult() {
var counts = [];
var i;
var value;
// run the function in a loop and count the number of occurrences of each value
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
value = distributionFunction(Math.random());
counts[value] = (counts[value] || 0) + 1;
}
// convert results to datatable and display
var data = new google.visualization.DataTable();
data.addColumn("number", "Value");
data.addColumn("number", "Count");
for (value = 0; value < counts.length; value++) {
if (counts[value] !== undefined) {
data.addRow([value, counts[value]]);
}
}
var chart = new google.visualization.ColumnChart(document.getElementById("chart"));
chart.draw(data);
}
google.load("visualization", "1", { packages: ["corechart"] });
google.setOnLoadCallback(testAndDrawResult);
<script src="https://www.google.com/jsapi"></script>
<div id="chart"></div>

Here's a weighted solution at 3/4 40-60 and 1/4 outside that range.
function weighted() {
var w = 4;
// number 1 to w
var r = Math.floor(Math.random() * w) + 1;
if (r === 1) { // 1/w goes to outside 40-60
var n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 80) + 1;
if (n >= 40 && n <= 60) n += 40;
return n
}
// w-1/w goes to 40-60 range.
return Math.floor(Math.random() * 21) + 40;
}
function test() {
var counts = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 2000; i++) {
var n = weighted();
if (!counts[n]) counts[n] = 0;
counts[n] ++;
}
var output = document.getElementById('output');
var o = "";
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
o += i + " - " + (counts[i] | 0) + "\n";
}
output.innerHTML = o;
}
test();
<pre id="output"></pre>

Ok, so I decided to add another answer because I felt like my last answer, as well as most answers here, use some sort of half-statistical way of obtaining a bell-curve type result return. The code I provide below works the same way as when you roll a dice. Therefore, it is hardest to get 1 or 99, but easiest to get 50.
var loops = 10; //Number of numbers generated
var min = 1,
max = 50;
var div = $("#results").html(random());
function random() {
var values = "";
for (var i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
var one = generate();
var two = generate();
var ans = one + two - 1;
var num = values += ans + "<br/>";
}
return values;
}
function generate() {
return Math.floor((Math.random() * (max - min + 1)) + min);
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="results"></div>

I'd recommend using the beta distribution to generate a number between 0-1, then scale it up. It's quite flexible and can create many different shapes of distributions.
Here's a quick and dirty sampler:
rbeta = function(alpha, beta) {
var a = 0
for(var i = 0; i < alpha; i++)
a -= Math.log(Math.random())
var b = 0
for(var i = 0; i < beta; i++)
b -= Math.log(Math.random())
return Math.ceil(100 * a / (a+b))
}

var randNum;
// generate random number from 1-5
var freq = Math.floor(Math.random() * (6 - 1) + 1);
// focus on 40-60 if the number is odd (1,3, or 5)
// this should happen %60 of the time
if (freq % 2){
randNum = Math.floor(Math.random() * (60 - 40) + 40);
}
else {
randNum = Math.floor(Math.random() * (100 - 1) + 1);
}

The best solution targeting this very problem is the one proposed by BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft but I think a somewhat faster and more general solution is also worth mentioning.
When I have to generate random numbers (strings, coordinate pairs, etc.) satisfying the two requirements of
The result set is quite small. (not larger than 16K numbers)
The result set is discreet. (like integer numbers only)
I usually start by creating an array of numbers (strings, coordinate pairs, etc.) fulfilling the requirement (In your case: an array of numbers containing the more probable ones multiple times.), then choose a random item of that array. This way, you only have to call the expensive random function once per item.

Distribution
5% for [ 0,39]
90% for [40,59]
5% for [60,99]
Solution
var f = Math.random();
if (f < 0.05) return random(0,39);
else if (f < 0.95) return random(40,59);
else return random(60,99);
Generic Solution
random_choose([series(0,39),series(40,59),series(60,99)],[0.05,0.90,0.05]);
function random_choose (collections,probabilities)
{
var acc = 0.00;
var r1 = Math.random();
var r2 = Math.random();
for (var i = 0; i < probabilities.length; i++)
{
acc += probabilities[i];
if (r1 < acc)
return collections[i][Math.floor(r2*collections[i].length)];
}
return (-1);
}
function series(min,max)
{
var i = min; var s = [];
while (s[s.length-1] < max) s[s.length]=i++;
return s;
}

You can use a helper random number to whether generate random numbers in 40-60 or 1-100:
// 90% of random numbers should be between 40 to 60.
var weight_percentage = 90;
var focuse_on_center = ( (Math.random() * 100) < weight_percentage );
if(focuse_on_center)
{
// generate a random number within the 40-60 range.
alert (40 + Math.random() * 20 + 1);
}
else
{
// generate a random number within the 1-100 range.
alert (Math.random() * 100 + 1);
}

If you can use the gaussian function, use it. This function returns normal number with average 0 and sigma 1.
95% of this number are within average +/- 2*sigma. Your average = 50, and sigma = 5 so
randomNumber = 50 + 5*gaussian()

The best way to do that is generating a random number that is distributed equally in a certain set of numbers, and then apply a projection function to the set between 0 and a 100 where the projection is more likely to hit the numbers you want.
Typically the mathematical way of achieving this is plotting a probability function of the numbers you want. We could use the bell curve, but let's for the sake of easier calculation just work with a flipped parabola.
Let's make a parabola such that its roots are at 0 and 100 without skewing it. We get the following equation:
f(x) = -(x-0)(x-100) = -x * (x-100) = -x^2 + 100x
Now, all the area under the curve between 0 and 100 is representative of our first set where we want the numbers generated. There, the generation is completely random. So, all we need to do is find the bounds of our first set.
The lower bound is, of course, 0. The upper bound is the integral of our function at 100, which is
F(x) = -x^3/3 + 50x^2
F(100) = 500,000/3 = 166,666.66666 (let's just use 166,666, because rounding up would make the target out of bounds)
So we know that we need to generate a number somewhere between 0 and 166,666. Then, we simply need to take that number and project it to our second set, which is between 0 and 100.
We know that the random number we generated is some integral of our parabola with an input x between 0 and 100. That means that we simply have to assume that the random number is the result of F(x), and solve for x.
In this case, F(x) is a cubic equation, and in the form F(x) = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d = 0, the following statements are true:
a = -1/3
b = 50
c = 0
d = -1 * (your random number)
Solving this for x yields you the actual random number your are looking for, which is guaranteed to be in the [0, 100] range and a much higher likelihood to be close to the center than the edges.

This answer is really good. But I would like to post implementation instructions (I'm not into JavaScript, so I hope you will understand) for different situation.
Assume you have ranges and weights for every range:
ranges - [1, 20], [21, 40], [41, 60], [61, 100]
weights - {1, 2, 100, 5}
Initial Static Information, could be cached:
Sum of all weights (108 in sample)
Range selection boundaries. It basically this formula: Boundary[n] = Boundary[n - 1] + weigh[n - 1] and Boundary[0] = 0. Sample has Boundary = {0, 1, 3, 103, 108}
Number generation:
Generate random number N from range [0, Sum of all weights).
for (i = 0; i < size(Boundary) && N > Boundary[i + 1]; ++i)
Take ith range and generate random number in that range.
Additional note for performance optimizations. Ranges don't have to be ordered neither ascending nor descending order, so for faster range look-up range that has highest weight should go first and one with lowest weight should go last.

Calculating cubic root for negative number

So, to be short,
3√(-8) = (-8)1/3
console.log(Math.pow(-8,1/3));
//Should be -2
But when I test it out, it outputs
NaN
Why? Is it a bug or it is expected to be like this in the first place? I am using JavaScript to draw graphs, but this messes up the graph.

You can use this snippet to calculate it. It also works for other powers, e.g. 1/4, 1/5, etc.
function nthroot(x, n) {
try {
var negate = n % 2 == 1 && x < 0;
if(negate)
x = -x;
var possible = Math.pow(x, 1 / n);
n = Math.pow(possible, n);
if(Math.abs(x - n) < 1 && (x > 0 == n > 0))
return negate ? -possible : possible;
} catch(e){}
}
nthroot(-8, 3);
Source: http://gotochriswest.com/blog/2011/05/06/cube-root-an-beyond/
A faster approach for just calculating the cubic root:
Math.cbrt = function(x) {
var sign = x === 0 ? 0 : x > 0 ? 1 : -1;
return sign * Math.pow(Math.abs(x), 1 / 3);
}
Math.cbrt(-8);
Update
To find an integer based cubic root, you can use the following function, inspired by this answer:
// positive-only cubic root approximation
function cbrt(n)
{
var a = n; // note: this is a non optimized assumption
while (a * a * a > n) {
a = Math.floor((2 * a + (n / (a * a))) / 3);
}
return a;
}
It starts with an assumption that converges to the closest integer a for which a^3 <= n. This function can be adjusted in the same way to support a negative base.

There's no bug; you are raising a negative number to a fractional power; hence, the NaN.
The top hit on google for this is from Dr Math the explanation is pretty good. It says for for real numbers (not complex numbers anyway), a negative number raised to a fractional power may not be a real number. The simplest example is probably
-4 ^ (1/2)
which is essentially computing the square root of -4. Even though the cubic root of -8 does have real solutions, I think that most software libraries find it more efficient not to do all the complex arithmetic and return NaN only when the imaginary part is nonzero and give you the nice real answer otherwise.
EDIT
Just to make absolutely clear that NaN is the intended result, see the official ECMAScript 5.1 Specification, Section 15.8.2.13. It says:
If x<0 and x is finite and y is finite and y is not an integer, the result is NaN.
Again, even though SOME instances of raising negative numbers to fractional powers have exactly one real root, many languages just do the NaN thing for all cases of negative numbers to fractional roots.
Please do not think JavaScript is the only such language. C++ does the same thing:
If x is finite negative and y is finite but not an integer value, it causes a domain error.

Two key problems:
Mathematically, there are multiple cubic roots of a negative number: -2, but also 2 complex roots (see cube roots of unity).
Javascript's Math object (and most other standard math libraries) will not do fractional powers of negative numbers. It converts the fractional power to a float before the function receives it, so you are asking the function to compute a floating point power of a negative number, which may or may not have a real solution. So it does the pragmatic thing and refuses to attempt to calculate such a value.
If you want to get the correct answer, you'll need to decide how mathematically correct you want to be, and write those rules into a non-standard implementation of pow.
All library functions are limited to avoid excessive calculation times and unnecessary complexity.

I like the other answers, but how about overriding Math.pow so it would be able to work with all nth roots of negative numbers:
//keep the original method for proxying
Math.pow_ = Math.pow;
//redefine the method
Math.pow = function(_base, _exponent) {
if (_base < 0) {
if (Math.abs(_exponent) < 1) {
//we're calculating nth root of _base, where n === 1/_exponent
if (1 / _exponent % 2 === 0) {
//nth root of a negative number is imaginary when n is even, we could return
//a string like "123i" but this would completely mess up further computation
return NaN;
}/*else if (1 / _exponent % 2 !== 0)*/
//nth root of a negative number when n is odd
return -Math.pow_(Math.abs(_base), _exponent);
}
}/*else if (_base >=0)*/
//run the original method, nothing will go wrong
return Math.pow_(_base, _exponent);
};
Fiddled with some test cases, give me a shout if you spot a bug!

So I see a bunch of methods that revolve around Math.pow(...) which is cool, but based on the wording of the bounty I'm proposing a slightly different approach.
There are several computational approximations for solving roots, some taking quicker steps than others. Ultimately the stopping point comes down to the degree of precision desired(it's really up to you/the problem being solved).
I'm not going to explain the math in fine detail, but the following are implementations of cubed root approximations that passed the target test(bounty test - also added negative range, because of the question title). Each iteration in the loop (see the while(Math.abs(xi-xi0)>precision) loops in each method) gets a step closer to the desired precision. Once precision is achieved a format is applied to the number so it's as precise as the calculation derived from the iteration.
var precision = 0.0000000000001;
function test_cuberoot_fn(fn) {
var tested = 0,
failed = 0;
for (var i = -100; i < 100; i++) {
var root = fn(i*i*i);
if (i !== root) {
console.log(i, root);
failed++;
}
tested++;
}
if (failed) {
console.log("failed %d / %d", failed, tested);
}else{
console.log("Passed test");
}
}
test_cuberoot_fn(newtonMethod);
test_cuberoot_fn(halleysMethod);
Newton's approximation Implementation
function newtonMethod(cube){
if(cube == 0){//only John Skeet and Chuck Norris
return 0; //can divide by zero, we'll have
} //to settle for check and return
var xi = 1;
var xi0 = -1;
while(Math.abs(xi-xi0)>precision){//precision = 0.0000000000001
xi0=xi;
xi = (1/3)*((cube/(xi*xi))+2*xi);
}
return Number(xi.toPrecision(12));
}
Halley's approximation Implementation
note Halley's approximation takes quicker steps to solving the cube, so it's computationally faster than newton's approximation.
function halleysMethod(cube){
if(cube == 0){//only John Skeet and Chuck Norris
return 0; //can divide by zero, we'll have
} //to settle for check and return
var xi = 1;
var xi0 = -1;
while(Math.abs(xi-xi0)>precision){//precision = 0.0000000000001
xi0=xi;
xi = xi*((xi*xi*xi + 2*cube)/(2*xi*xi*xi+cube));
}
return Number(xi.toPrecision(12));
}

It's Working in Chrome Console
function cubeRoot(number) {
var num = number;
var temp = 1;
var inverse = 1 / 3;
if (num < 0) {
num = -num;
temp = -1;
}
var res = Math.pow(num, inverse);
var acc = res - Math.floor(res);
if (acc <= 0.00001)
res = Math.floor(res);
else if (acc >= 0.99999)
res = Math.ceil(res);
return (temp * res);
}
cubeRoot(-64) // -4
cubeRoot(64) // 4

As a heads up, in ES6 there is now a Math.cbrt function.
In my testing in Google chrome it appears to work almost twice as fast as Math.pow. Interestingly I had to add up the results otherwise chrome did a better job of optimizing away the pow function.
//do a performance test on the cube root function from es6
var start=0, end=0, k=0;
start = performance.now();
k=0;
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.cbrt(i);
//k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("cbrt took:" + (end-start),k);
k=0;
start = performance.now();
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.pow(i,0.33333333);
//k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("pow took:" + (end-start),k);
k=0;
start = performance.now();
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.cbrt(i);
k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("cbrt took:" + (end-start),k);
k=0;
start = performance.now();
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.pow(i,0.33333333);
k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("pow took:" + (end-start),k);
Result:
cbrt took:468.28200000163633 0
pow took:77.21999999921536 0
cbrt took:546.8039999977918 1615825909.5248165
pow took:869.1149999940535 1615825826.7510242

//aren't cube roots of negative numbers the same as positive, except for the sign?
Math.cubeRoot= function(n, r){
var sign= (n<0)? -1: 1;
return sign*Math.pow(Math.abs(n), 1/3);
}
Math.cubeRoot(-8)
/* returned value: (Number)
-2
*/

Just want to highlight that in ES6 there is a native cubic root function. So you can just do this (check the support here)
Math.cbrt(-8) will return you -2

this works with negative number and negative exponent:
function nthRoot(x = 0, r = 1) {
if (x < 0) {
if (r % 2 === 1) return -nthRoot(-x, r)
if (r % 2 === -1) return -1 / nthRoot(-x, -r)
}
return x ** (1 / r)
}
examples:
nthRoot( 16, 2) 4
nthRoot( 16, -2) 0.25
nthRoot(-16, 2) NaN
nthRoot(-16, -2) NaN
nthRoot( 27, 3) 3
nthRoot( 27, -3) 0.3333333333333333
nthRoot(-27, 3) -3
nthRoot(-27, -3) -0.3333333333333333

How to generate skewed random numbers in Javascript?

Using Javascript, how can I generate random numbers that are skewed towards one end or the other of the distribution? Or ideally an point within the range?
For context: I'm creating a UI that has uses a grid of random grey squares. I'm generating the grey's RGB values using Math.random() but would like to be able to skew the greys to be on average darker or lighter while still having the full range from black to white represented.
(I think this is a similar question to Skewing java random number generation toward a certain number but I'm working with Javascript...)
Any help greatly appreciated.

Raise Math.random() to a power to get a gamma curve - this changes the distribution between 0 and 1, but 0 and 1 stay constant endpoints.
var r= Math.pow(Math.random(), 2);
var colour= 'rgb('+r*255+', '+r*255+', '+r*255+')';
For gamma>1, you will get darker output; for 0<gamma<1 you get lighter. (Here, '2' gives you the x-squared curve; the equidistant lightness would be '0.5' for the square-root curve.)

This seems a little crude and less graceful than #bobince's answer, but what the hell.
//setup
var colours = [], num_colours = 10, skew_to = 255, skew_chance = 20;
//get as many RGB vals as required
for (var i=0; i<num_colours; i++) {
//generate random grey
var this_grey = Math.floor(Math.random() * 256);
//skew it towards the #skew_to endpoint, or leave as-is?
if (Math.floor(Math.random() * 100) >= skew_chance && this_grey != skew_to) {
//skew by random amount (0 - difference between curr val and endpoint)
var skew_amount = Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.abs(this_grey - skew_to));
this_grey += ' (skewed to '+(skew_to < this_grey ? this_grey - skew_amount : this_grey + skew_amount)+')';
}
colours.push(this_grey);
}
console.log(colours);
Essentially it generates random greys then decides, based on probably specified (as a percentage) in skew_chance, whether to skew it or not. (In case you wanted to make this occasional, not constant). If it decides to skew, a random number is then added or subtracted from the grey value (depending on whether the skew endpoint is under or above the current value).
This random number is a number between 0 and the absolute difference between the current value and the endpoint, e.g. if current value is 40, and the endpoint is 100, the number added would be between 0 and 60.
Like I say, #bobince's answer is somewhat, er, more graceful!

[This might be a little different approach.]
This approach deals with getting the number in the following fashion:
random = numberToSkewTo + random(-1,1)*stdDeviation
Where:
numberToSkewTo is the number you want to skew towards.
stdDeviation is the deviation from numberToSkewTo
numberToSkewTo + abs(stdDeviation) <= MAX_NUMBER and
numberToSkewTo - abs(stdDeviation) >= MIN_NUMBER
What the following code does is, it pick a random number around the given number with constantly increasing standard deviations. It returns the average of results.
function skew(skewTo,stdDev){
var rand = (Math.random()*2 - 1) + (Math.random()*2 - 1) + (Math.random()*2 - 1);
return skewTo + rand*stdDev;
}
function getRandom(skewTo){
var difference = Math.min(skewTo-MIN_NUMBER, MAX_NUMBER-skewTo);
var steps = 5;
var total = 0.0;
for(var i=1; i<=steps; i++)
total += skew(skewTo, 1.0*i*difference/steps);
return total/steps
}