Develop Reference

Generate random & unique 4 digit codes without brute force

I'm building an app and in one of my functions I need to generate random & unique 4 digit codes. Obviously there is a finite range from 0000 to 9999 but each day the entire list will be wiped and each day I will not need more than the available amount of codes which means it's possible to have unique codes for each day. Realistically I will probably only need a few hundred codes a day.
The way I've coded it for now is the simple brute force way which would be to generate a random 4 digit number, check if the number exists in an array and if it does, generate another number while if it doesn't, return the generated number.
Since it's 4 digits, the runtime isn't anything too crazy and I'm mostly generating a few hundred codes a day so there won't be some scenario where I've generated 9999 codes and I keep randomly generating numbers to find the last remaining one.
It would also be fine to have letters in there as well instead of just numbers if it would make the problem easier.
Other than my brute force method, what would be a more efficient way of doing this?
Thank you!

Since you have a constrained number of values that will easily fit in memory, the simplest way I know of is to create a list of the possible values and select one randomly, then remove it from the list so it can't be selected again. This will never have a collision with a previously used number:
function initValues(numValues) {
const values = new Array(numValues);
// fill the array with each value
for (let i = 0; i < values.length; i++) {
values[i] = i;
}
return values;
}
function getValue(array) {
if (!array.length) {
throw new Error("array is empty, no more random values");
}
const i = Math.floor(Math.random() * array.length);
const returnVal = array[i];
array.splice(i, 1);
return returnVal;
}
// sample code to use it
const rands = initValues(10000);
console.log(getValue(rands));
console.log(getValue(rands));
console.log(getValue(rands));
console.log(getValue(rands));
This works by doing the following:
Generate an array of all possible values.
When you need a value, select one from the array with a random index.
After selecting the value, remove it from the array.
Return the selected value.
Items are never repeated because they are removed from the array when used.
There are no collisions with used values because you're always just selecting a random value from the remaining unused values.
This relies on the fact that an array of integers is pretty well optimized in Javascript so doing a .splice() on a 10,000 element array is still pretty fast (as it can probably just be memmove instructions).
FYI, this could be made more memory efficient by using a typed array since your numbers can be represented in 16-bit values (instead of the default 64 bits for doubles). But, you'd have to implement your own version of .splice() and keep track of the length yourself since typed arrays don't have these capabilities built in.
For even larger problems like this where memory usage becomes a problem, I've used a BitArray to keep track of previous usage of values.
Here's a class implementation of the same functionality:
class Randoms {
constructor(numValues) {
this.values = new Array(numValues);
for (let i = 0; i < this.values.length; i++) {
this.values[i] = i;
}
}
getRandomValue() {
if (!this.values.length) {
throw new Error("no more random values");
}
const i = Math.floor(Math.random() * this.values.length);
const returnVal = this.values[i];
this.values.splice(i, 1);
return returnVal;
}
}
const rands = new Randoms(10000);
console.log(rands.getRandomValue());
console.log(rands.getRandomValue());
console.log(rands.getRandomValue());
console.log(rands.getRandomValue());

Knuth's multiplicative method looks to work pretty well: it'll map numbers 0 to 9999 to a random-looking other number 0 to 9999, with no overlap:
const hash = i => i*2654435761 % (10000);
const s = new Set();
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
const n = hash(i);
if (s.has(n)) { console.log(i, n); break; }
s.add(n);
}
To implement it, simply keep track of an index that gets incremented each time a new one is generated:
const hash = i => i*2654435761 % (10000);
let i = 1;
console.log(
hash(i++),
hash(i++),
hash(i++),
hash(i++),
hash(i++),
);
These results aren't actually random, but they probably do the job well enough for most purposes.

Disclaimer:
This is copy-paste from my answer to another question here. The code was in turn ported from yet another question here.
Utilities:
function isPrime(n) {
if (n <= 1) return false;
if (n <= 3) return true;
if (n % 2 == 0 || n % 3 == 0) return false;
for (let i = 5; i * i <= n; i = i + 6) {
if (n % i == 0 || n % (i + 2) == 0) return false;
}
return true;
}
function findNextPrime(n) {
if (n <= 1) return 2;
let prime = n;
while (true) {
prime++;
if (isPrime(prime)) return prime;
}
}
function getIndexGeneratorParams(spaceSize) {
const N = spaceSize;
const Q = findNextPrime(Math.floor(2 * N / (1 + Math.sqrt(5))))
const firstIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * spaceSize);
return [firstIndex, N, Q]
}
function getNextIndex(prevIndex, N, Q) {
return (prevIndex + Q) % N
}
Usage
// Each day you bootstrap to get a tuple of these parameters and persist them throughout the day.
const [firstIndex, N, Q] = getIndexGeneratorParams(10000)
// need to keep track of previous index generated.
// it’s a seed to generate next one.
let prevIndex = firstIndex
// calling this function gives you the unique code
function getHashCode() {
prevIndex = getNextIndex(prevIndex, N, Q)
return prevIndex.toString().padStart(4, "0")
}
console.log(getHashCode());
Explanation
For simplicity let’s say you want generate non-repeat numbers from 0 to 35 in random order. We get pseudo-randomness by polling a "full cycle iterator"†. The idea is simple:
have the indexes 0..35 layout in a circle, denote upperbound as N=36
decide a step size, denoted as Q (Q=23 in this case) given by this formula‡
Q = findNextPrime(Math.floor(2 * N / (1 + Math.sqrt(5))))
randomly decide a starting point, e.g. number 5
start generating seemingly random nextIndex from prevIndex, by
nextIndex = (prevIndex + Q) % N
So if we put 5 in we get (5 + 23) % 36 == 28. Put 28 in we get (28 + 23) % 36 == 15.
This process will go through every number in circle (jump back and forth among points on the circle), it will pick each number only once, without repeating. When we get back to our starting point 5, we know we've reach the end.
†: I'm not sure about this term, just quoting from this answer
‡: This formula only gives a nice step size that will make things look more "random", the only requirement for Q is it must be coprime to N

This problem is so small I think a simple solution is best. Build an ordered array of the 10k possible values & permute it at the start of each day. Give the k'th value to the k'th request that day.
It avoids the possible problem with your solution of having multiple collisions.

Trying to optimize my code to either remove nested loop or make it more efficient

A friend of mine takes a sequence of numbers from 1 to n (where n > 0)
Within that sequence, he chooses two numbers, a and b
He says that the product of a and b should be equal to the sum of all numbers in the sequence, excluding a and b
Given a number n, could you tell me the numbers he excluded from the sequence?
Have found the solution to this Kata from Code Wars but it times out (After 12 seconds) in the editor when I run it; any ideas as too how I should further optimize the nested for loop and or remove it?
function removeNb(n) {
var nArray = [];
var sum = 0;
var answersArray = [];
for (let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
nArray.push(n - (n - i));
sum += i;
}
var length = nArray.length;
for (let i = Math.round(n / 2); i < length; i++) {
for (let y = Math.round(n / 2); y < length; y++) {
if (i != y) {
if (i * y === sum - i - y) {
answersArray.push([i, y]);
break;
}
}
}
}
return answersArray;
}
console.log(removeNb(102));
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }

I think there is no reason for calculating the sum after you fill the array, you can do that while filling it.
function removeNb(n) {
let nArray = [];
let sum = 0;
for(let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
nArray.push(i);
sum += i;
}
}
And since there could be only two numbers a and b as the inputs for the formula a * b = sum - a - b, there could be only one possible value for each of them. So, there's no need to continue the loop when you find them.
if(i*y === sum - i - y) {
answersArray.push([i,y]);
break;
}
I recommend looking at the problem in another way.
You are trying to find two numbers a and b using this formula a * b = sum - a - b.
Why not reduce the formula like this:
a * b + a = sum - b
a ( b + 1 ) = sum - b
a = (sum - b) / ( b + 1 )
Then you only need one for loop that produces the value of b, check if (sum - b) is divisible by ( b + 1 ) and if the division produces a number that is less than n.
for(let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
let eq1 = sum - i;
let eq2 = i + 1;
if (eq1 % eq2 === 0) {
let a = eq1 / eq2;
if (a < n && a != i) {
return [[a, b], [b, a]];
}
}
}

You can solve this in linear time with two pointers method (page 77 in the book).
In order to gain intuition towards a solution, let's start thinking about this part of your code:
for(let i = Math.round(n/2); i < length; i++) {
for(let y = Math.round(n/2); y < length; y++) {
...
You already figured out this is the part of your code that is slow. You are trying every combination of i and y, but what if you didn't have to try every single combination?
Let's take a small example to illustrate why you don't have to try every combination.
Suppose n == 10 so we have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 where sum = 55.
Suppose the first combination we tried was 1*10.
Does it make sense to try 1*9 next? Of course not, since we know that 1*10 < 55-10-1 we know we have to increase our product, not decrease it.
So let's try 2*10. Well, 20 < 55-10-2 so we still have to increase.
3*10==30 < 55-3-10==42
4*10==40 < 55-4-10==41
But then 5*10==50 > 55-5-10==40. Now we know we have to decrease our product. We could either decrease 5 or we could decrease 10, but we already know that there is no solution if we decrease 5 (since we tried that in the previous step). So the only choice is to decrease 10.
5*9==45 > 55-5-9==41. Same thing again: we have to decrease 9.
5*8==40 < 55-5-8==42. And now we have to increase again...
You can think about the above example as having 2 pointers which are initialized to the beginning and end of the sequence. At every step we either
move the left pointer towards right
or move the right pointer towards left
In the beginning the difference between pointers is n-1. At every step the difference between pointers decreases by one. We can stop when the pointers cross each other (and say that no solution can be obtained if one was not found so far). So clearly we can not do more than n computations before arriving at a solution. This is what it means to say that the solution is linear with respect to n; no matter how large n grows, we never do more than n computations. Contrast this to your original solution, where we actually end up doing n^2 computations as n grows large.

Hassan is correct, here is a full solution:
function removeNb (n) {
var a = 1;
var d = 1;
// Calculate the sum of the numbers 1-n without anything removed
var S = 0.5 * n * (2*a + (d *(n-1)));
// For each possible value of b, calculate a if it exists.
var results = [];
for (let numB = a; numB <= n; numB++) {
let eq1 = S - numB;
let eq2 = numB + 1;
if (eq1 % eq2 === 0) {
let numA = eq1 / eq2;
if (numA < n && numA != numB) {
results.push([numA, numB]);
results.push([numB, numA]);
}
}
}
return results;
}

In case it's of interest, CY Aries pointed this out:
ab + a + b = n(n + 1)/2
add 1 to both sides
ab + a + b + 1 = (n^2 + n + 2) / 2
(a + 1)(b + 1) = (n^2 + n + 2) / 2
so we're looking for factors of (n^2 + n + 2) / 2 and have some indication about the least size of the factor. This doesn't necessarily imply a great improvement in complexity for the actual search but still it's kind of cool.

This is part comment, part answer.
In engineering terms, the original function posted is using "brute force" to solve the problem, iterating every (or more than needed) possible combinations. The number of iterations is n is large - if you did all possible it would be
n * (n-1) = bazillio n
Less is More
So lets look at things that can be optimized, first some minor things, I'm a little confused about the first for loop and nArray:
// OP's code
for(let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
nArray.push(n - (n - i));
sum += i;
}
??? You don't really use nArray for anything? Length is just n .. am I so sleep deprived I'm missing something? And while you can sum a consecutive sequence of integers 1-n by using a for loop, there is a direct and easy way that avoids a loop:
sum = ( n + 1 ) * n * 0.5 ;
THE LOOPS
// OP's loops, not optimized
for(let i = Math.round(n/2); i < length; i++) {
for(let y = Math.round(n/2); y < length; y++) {
if(i != y) {
if(i*y === sum - i - y) {
Optimization Considerations:
I see you're on the right track in a way, cutting the starting i, y values in half since the factors . But you're iterating both of them in the same direction : UP. And also, the lower numbers look like they can go a little below half of n (perhaps not because the sequence start at 1, I haven't confirmed that, but it seems the case).
Plus we want to avoid division every time we start an instantiation of the loop (i.e set the variable once, and also we're going to change it). And finally, with the IF statements, i and y will never be equal to each other the way we're going to create the loops, so that's a conditional that can vanish.
But the more important thing is the direction of transversing the loops. The smaller factor low is probably going to be close to the lowest loop value (about half of n) and the larger factor hi is probably going to be near the value of n. If we has some solid math theory that said something like "hi will never be less than 0.75n" then we could make a couple mods to take advantage of that knowledge.
The way the loops are show below, they break and iterate before the hi and low loops meet.
Moreover, it doesn't matter which loop picks the lower or higher number, so we can use this to shorten the inner loop as number pairs are tested, making the loop smaller each time. We don't want to waste time checking the same pair of numbers more than once! The lower factor's loop will start a little below half of n and go up, and the higher factor's loop will start at n and go down.
// Code Fragment, more optimized:
let nHi = n;
let low = Math.trunc( n * 0.49 );
let sum = ( n + 1 ) * n * 0.5 ;
// While Loop for the outside (incrementing) loop
while( low < nHi ) {
// FOR loop for the inside decrementing loop
for(let hi = nHi; hi > low; hi--) {
// If we're higher than the sum, we exit, decrement.
if( hi * low + hi + low > sum ) {
continue;
}
// If we're equal, then we're DONE and we write to array.
else if( hi * low + hi + low === sum) {
answersArray.push([hi, low]);
low = nHi; // Note this is if we want to end once finding one pair
break; // If you want to find ALL pairs for large numbers then replace these low = nHi; with low++;
}
// And if not, we increment the low counter and restart the hi loop from the top.
else {
low++;
break;
}
} // close for
} // close while
Tutorial:
So we set the few variables. Note that low is set slightly less than half of n, as larger numbers look like they could be a few points less. Also, we don't round, we truncate, which is essentially "always rounding down", and is slightly better for performance, (though it dosenit matter in this instance with just the single assignment).
The while loop starts at the lowest value and increments, potentially all the way up to n-1. The hi FOR loop starts at n (copied to nHi), and then decrements until the factor are found OR it intercepts at low + 1.
The conditionals:
First IF: If we're higher than the sum, we exit, decrement, and continue at a lower value for the hi factor.
ELSE IF: If we are EQUAL, then we're done, and break for lunch. We set low = nHi so that when we break out of the FOR loop, we will also exit the WHILE loop.
ELSE: If we get here it's because we're less than the sum, so we need to increment the while loop and reset the hi FOR loop to start again from n (nHi).

Array of random numbers optimization

I have a function that generates an array of random numbers. It works, but I feel that it might works slow on big numbers. Is there a way how to optimize it?
function renerateRandomNumbers(maxNumber, randomNumbersCount) {
let i;
const arrResult = [];
for (i = 0; i < randomNumbersCount; i++) {
let rand = Math.random() * (maxNumber);
rand = Math.round(rand);
if (arrResult.indexOf(rand) === -1 ) {
arrResult.push(rand);
} else {
i--;
}
}
return arrResult;
}

EDIT - To any future users, #ScottSauyet's solution should be the accepted answer. It is a more consistently efficient solution than mine.
I think the most algorithmically efficient way to solve this would be to generate the list of all possible numbers from 0-maxNumber, shuffle that array (O(n)), and then take the first randomNumbersCount numbers from the shuffled array. It would look like the following:
function shuffleArray(array) {
for (let i = array.length - 1; i > 0; i--) {
const j = Math.floor(Math.random() * (i + 1));
[array[i], array[j]] = [array[j], array[i]];
}
}
function generateRandomNumbers(maxNumber, randomNumbersCount) {
var possibleNumbers = [];
// populate array with all possible values
for (var i = 0; i <= maxNumber; i++) { possibleNumbers.push(i); }
// shuffle the array to get a random order of the possible numbers O(n)
shuffleArray(possibleNumbers);
// trim the array down to only the first n numbers where n = randomNumbersCount
possibleNumbers.length = randomNumbersCount;
return possibleNumbers;
}
console.log (generateRandomNumbers(10, 5));
console.log (generateRandomNumbers(10, 5));
console.log (generateRandomNumbers(10, 5));

The problem of your code is that complexity grows geometrically because it have a chance generate number that was already picked multiple times.
What we need to achieve is to get number on every iteration to achieve iterations count to be equal to the randomNumbersCount.
How to avoid multiple same random numbers?
let's say you want to have 5 random numbers from 0-10 range
First iteration
Create an array with values var candidates = [0,1...10]
Generate random number let's say 0
Store the number candidates[0] in results
Remove 0 from candidates. To avaoid reindexing of the candidates array we will put candidates[candidates.length - 1] into candidates[0] and remove candidates[candidates.length - 1]
and then will do this operation randomNumbersCount times.
Second iteration
Our candidates array is now [10,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
Generate random number let's say 0 again. Wow we generated similar random number, but so what?
we alreay have 0 in our results, but candidates[0] is not a 0 anymore candidates[0] is 10 right now
so we pick candidates[0] that is 10 and will store it and remove it from candidates. Put candidates[candidates.length - 1] (9) into candidates[0] and remove candidates[candidates.length - 1]
our result is [0, 10] right now
Third iteration
Our candidates is now [9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
Generate random number let's say 0
we are not worring anymore because we know that candidates[0] is 9
add candidates[0] (witch is 9) we are saving to results, and remove it from candidates
our result is [0,10,9], candidates is [8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
And so on
BTW implementation is much shorter than explanation:
function renerateRandomNumbers(maxNumber, randomNumbersCount) {
var candidates = [...Array(maxNumber).keys()];
return Array(randomNumbersCount).fill()
.map(() => {
const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * candidates.length)
const n = candidates[randomIndex]
candidates[randomIndex] = candidates[candidates.length - 1]
candidates.length = candidates.length - 1
return n
})
.sort((a, b) => a - b) // sort if needed
}
console.log (renerateRandomNumbers(10, 5))

The solution from mhodges is reasonably efficient, but only when the sought count is fairly close to the max number. If your count is significantly smaller, this can be a problem, as the solution is O(m + n) where m is the maximum and n is the desired count. It's also O(m) in space. If m is large, this could be a problem.
A variant would make this approximately O(n) in time and space, by doing the same thing, but stopping the shuffle when when we've reached count items and by not pre-filling the array but instead defaulting to its indices.
function venerateRandomNumbers(max, count) {
// todo: error if count > max
const arr = new Array(max + 1)
for (let i = max; i > max - count; i--) {
const j = Math.floor(Math.random() * (i + 1))
const temp = arr[j] || j
arr[j] = arr[i] || i
arr[i] = temp
}
return arr.slice(-count)
}
console.log(venerateRandomNumbers(1000000, 10))
You can see performance comparisons on repl.it

Sum of Odd Fibonnaci failing with Higher values?

So im running into an odd error, where im summing all fibonnaci numbers that are odd and LESS than a number.
the odd thing is this works with low values, but when I get to upper values past 10 or so.....it'll crash codepen.io
here is what I have so far:
function f(n)
{
if(n <= 1)
return n;
return f(n-1)+f(n-2);
}
function sumFibs(num) {
var counter = 0;
var arr = [];
//Get all Fibbonaci Numbers up to num
for(let i = 1;i <= num;i++)
{
arr.push(f(i));
}
for(let j = 0;j < arr.length;j++)
{
if(arr[j] % 2 != 0 && arr[j] <=num)
{
counter+= arr[j];
}
}
console.log(counter);
return counter;
}
sumFibs(10);
Basically I calculate fib up to the num and then I go through each odd one thats less than or equal to num and add those up.
Im getting correct values (IE for 10 i get 10, for 4 i get 5....etc...)
but if I put in something like 1000 it seems to just crash? and I can't seem to figure out any reason why?

The recursive f() function is a logical way to express a Fibonacci number calculation, but it isn't very efficient compared to an iterative approach, especially because you are calling it repeatedly from inside a loop. I think this is bringing your browser to a halt. Within the loop each time you call f() it is calculating the specified Fibonacci number from scratch by recursively calling itself. So, say, to get f(10), it calls itself twice with f(9) + f(8) (and then they in turn call f(8)+f(7) and f(7)+f(6), etc., so even that is pretty inefficient), but in fact you already know what f(9) and f(8) are because you've stored those values in your array on previous loop iterations.
If you change your loop to calculate each subsequent number directly rather than calling another function you get much faster code:
var arr = [1, 1]; // start with the known first two numbers
//Get all Fibbonaci Numbers up to num
for(let i = 2; i < num; i++) // start the loop at index 2 for the third number
{
arr[i] = arr[i-2] + arr[i-1];
}
With that change in place, your sumFibs() function can give you results even for sumFibs(1000000) in a matter of milliseconds:
function sumFibs(num) {
var counter = 0;
var arr = [1, 1];
//Get all Fibbonaci Numbers up to num
for (let i = 2; i < num; i++) {
arr[i] = arr[i - 2] + arr[i - 1];
}
for (let j = 0; j < arr.length; j++) {
if (arr[j] % 2 != 0) {
counter += arr[j];
}
}
return counter;
}
console.log('10: ' + sumFibs(10));
console.log('100: ' + sumFibs(100));
console.log('1000: ' + sumFibs(1000));
console.log('10000: ' + sumFibs(10000));
console.time('High fib');
console.log('1000000: ' + sumFibs(1000000));
console.timeEnd('High fib');
Note that you also had a logic error in your second loop, the one that adds up the odd numbers: the && arr[j] <=num part needed to be removed. The values in arr are the actual Fibonacci numbers, but num is the sequence number, so it doesn't make sense to be comparing them. You just want every odd number in the whole array.
However, the return value from your function is still going to be incorrect if num is too large. That's because by the time you get to the 80-somethingth Fibonacci number it is larger than JavaScript can handle without losing precision, i.e., larger than Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER, 9,007,199,254,740,991 (which is 2^53 - 1). Numbers above that start getting rounded so your tests for odd numbers aren't reliable and thus the total sum doesn't include all of the numbers it should have, or if you add too many JS considers your result to be Infinity.

Need help writing code to convert decimal to binary without the use of the toString

I'm trying to create my own decimal to binary converter with the method of decrementing the inputted variable (decimal value), by dividing it by 2 and storing the remainder (like 2nd grade math remainder), which is always either 0 or 1. Each of the remainder values i thin should be stored in an array and I think maybe put in backwards so that the most significant digit is first in the array (this is because when decrementing the remainer values are filled in left to right). Soooo yea i dont really know how to store the remainder values in an array using a function
Thanks in advance and if something is confusing then feel free to ask because im not even sure if this is the best method of doing this its just what i came up with
function decimalToBinary(num) {
var bin = 0;
while (num > 0) {
bin = num % 2 + bin;
num >>= 1; // basically /= 2 without remainder if any
}
alert("That decimal in binary is " + bin);
}

Your code is almost correct. The main problem is that bin starts out as 0; when you add a digit, they are added numerically, so your code ends up just counting the binary 1s: in this manner, 10 is initial 0, and +1+0+1+0, resulting in 2. You want to handle it as a string: ""+1+0+1+0 results in 1010. So, the only needed change is:
var bin = "";
If you want to solve it using arrays, with minimal changes to your code, it would be:
function decimalToBinary(num) {
var bin = [];
while (num > 0) {
bin.unshift(num % 2);
num >>= 1; // basically /= 2 without remainder if any
}
alert("That decimal in binary is " + bin.join(''));
}
Here, I use .unshift to add an element to the head of the array (and renumbering the remaining elements); .join() to collect them all into a string.
Or this:
function decimalToBinary(num) {
var bin = [];
while (num > 0) {
bin[bin.length] = num % 2;
num >>= 1; // basically /= 2 without remainder if any
}
alert("That decimal in binary is " + bin.reverse().join(''));
}
This is not as good, but illustrates some more things you can do with arrays: taking their length, setting an arbitrary element, and flipping them around.

I have written a custom Decimal to Binary method:
function toBinary (input) {
let options = [1];
let max = 0;
let i = 1;
while(i) {
max = Math.pow(2, i);
if (max > input) break;
options.push(max);
i++;
}
let j = options.length;
let result = new Array(j);
result.fill("0");
while(j >= 0) {
if (options[j] <= input) {
result[j] = "1"
input = input - options[j];
}
j--;
}
return [...result].reverse().join("");
}
//Test the toBin method with built-in toString(2)
toBinary(100) === (100).toString(2) // true
toBinary(1) === (1).toString(2) // true
toBinary(128) === (128).toString(2) // true