Is it possible to seed the random number generator (Math.random) in JavaScript?
No, it is not possible to seed Math.random(). The ECMAScript specification is intentionally vague on the subject, providing no means for seeding nor require that browsers even use the same algorithm. So such a function must be externally provided, which thankfully isn't too difficult.
I've implemented a number of good, short and fast Pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) functions in plain JavaScript. All of them can be seeded and provide high quality numbers. These are not intended for security purposes--if you need a seedable CSPRNG, look into ISAAC.
First of all, take care to initialize your PRNGs properly. To keep things simple, the generators below have no built-in seed generating procedure, but accept one or more 32-bit numbers as the initial seed state of the PRNG. Similar or sparse seeds (e.g. a simple seed of 1 and 2) have low entropy, and can cause correlations or other randomness quality issues, sometimes resulting in the output having similar properties (such as randomly generated levels being similar). To avoid this, it is best practice to initialize PRNGs with a well-distributed, high entropy seed and/or advancing past the first 15 or so numbers.
There are many ways to do this, but here are two methods. Firstly, hash functions are very good at generating seeds from short strings. A good hash function will generate very different results even when two strings are similar, so you don't have to put much thought into the string. Here's an example hash function:
function cyrb128(str) {
let h1 = 1779033703, h2 = 3144134277,
h3 = 1013904242, h4 = 2773480762;
for (let i = 0, k; i < str.length; i++) {
k = str.charCodeAt(i);
h1 = h2 ^ Math.imul(h1 ^ k, 597399067);
h2 = h3 ^ Math.imul(h2 ^ k, 2869860233);
h3 = h4 ^ Math.imul(h3 ^ k, 951274213);
h4 = h1 ^ Math.imul(h4 ^ k, 2716044179);
}
h1 = Math.imul(h3 ^ (h1 >>> 18), 597399067);
h2 = Math.imul(h4 ^ (h2 >>> 22), 2869860233);
h3 = Math.imul(h1 ^ (h3 >>> 17), 951274213);
h4 = Math.imul(h2 ^ (h4 >>> 19), 2716044179);
return [(h1^h2^h3^h4)>>>0, (h2^h1)>>>0, (h3^h1)>>>0, (h4^h1)>>>0];
}
Calling cyrb128 will produce a 128-bit hash value from a string which can be used to seed a PRNG. Here's how you might use it:
// Create cyrb128 state:
var seed = cyrb128("apples");
// Four 32-bit component hashes provide the seed for sfc32.
var rand = sfc32(seed[0], seed[1], seed[2], seed[3]);
// Only one 32-bit component hash is needed for mulberry32.
var rand = mulberry32(seed[0]);
// Obtain sequential random numbers like so:
rand();
rand();
Note: If you want a slightly more robust 128-bit hash, consider MurmurHash3_x86_128, it's more thorough, but intended for use with large arrays.
Alternatively, simply choose some dummy data to pad the seed with, and advance the generator beforehand a few times (12-20 iterations) to mix the initial state thoroughly. This has the benefit of being simpler, and is often used in reference implementations of PRNGs, but it does limit the number of initial states:
var seed = 1337 ^ 0xDEADBEEF; // 32-bit seed with optional XOR value
// Pad seed with Phi, Pi and E.
// https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing-up-my-sleeve_number
var rand = sfc32(0x9E3779B9, 0x243F6A88, 0xB7E15162, seed);
for (var i = 0; i < 15; i++) rand();
Note: the output of these PRNG functions produce a positive 32-bit number (0 to 232-1) which is then converted to a floating-point number between 0-1 (0 inclusive, 1 exclusive) equivalent to Math.random(), if you want random numbers of a specific range, read this article on MDN. If you only want the raw bits, simply remove the final division operation.
JavaScript numbers can only represent whole integers up to 53-bit resolution. And when using bitwise operations, this is reduced to 32. Modern PRNGs in other languages often use 64-bit operations, which require shims when porting to JS that can drastically reduce performance. The algorithms here only use 32-bit operations, as it is directly compatible with JS.
Now, onward to the the generators. (I maintain the full list with references and license info here)
sfc32 (Simple Fast Counter)
sfc32 is part of the PractRand random number testing suite (which it passes of course). sfc32 has a 128-bit state and is very fast in JS.
function sfc32(a, b, c, d) {
return function() {
a >>>= 0; b >>>= 0; c >>>= 0; d >>>= 0;
var t = (a + b) | 0;
a = b ^ b >>> 9;
b = c + (c << 3) | 0;
c = (c << 21 | c >>> 11);
d = d + 1 | 0;
t = t + d | 0;
c = c + t | 0;
return (t >>> 0) / 4294967296;
}
}
You may wonder what the | 0 and >>>= 0 are for. These are essentially 32-bit integer casts, used for performance optimizations. Number in JS are basically floats, but during bitwise operations, they switch into a 32-bit integer mode. This mode is processed faster by JS interpreters, but any multiplication or addition will cause it to switch back to a float, resulting in a performance hit.
Mulberry32
Mulberry32 is a simple generator with a 32-bit state, but is extremely fast and has good quality randomness (author states it passes all tests of gjrand testing suite and has a full 232 period, but I haven't verified).
function mulberry32(a) {
return function() {
var t = a += 0x6D2B79F5;
t = Math.imul(t ^ t >>> 15, t | 1);
t ^= t + Math.imul(t ^ t >>> 7, t | 61);
return ((t ^ t >>> 14) >>> 0) / 4294967296;
}
}
I would recommend this if you just need a simple but decent PRNG and don't need billions of random numbers (see Birthday problem).
xoshiro128**
As of May 2018, xoshiro128** is the new member of the Xorshift family, by Vigna & Blackman (professor Vigna was also responsible for the Xorshift128+ algorithm powering most Math.random implementations under the hood). It is the fastest generator that offers a 128-bit state.
function xoshiro128ss(a, b, c, d) {
return function() {
var t = b << 9, r = a * 5; r = (r << 7 | r >>> 25) * 9;
c ^= a; d ^= b;
b ^= c; a ^= d; c ^= t;
d = d << 11 | d >>> 21;
return (r >>> 0) / 4294967296;
}
}
The authors claim it passes randomness tests well (albeit with caveats). Other researchers have pointed out that it fails some tests in TestU01 (particularly LinearComp and BinaryRank). In practice, it should not cause issues when floats are used (such as in these implementations), but may cause issues if relying on the raw lowest order bit.
JSF (Jenkins' Small Fast)
This is JSF or 'smallprng' by Bob Jenkins (2007), who also made ISAAC and SpookyHash. It passes PractRand tests and should be quite fast, although not as fast as sfc32.
function jsf32(a, b, c, d) {
return function() {
a |= 0; b |= 0; c |= 0; d |= 0;
var t = a - (b << 27 | b >>> 5) | 0;
a = b ^ (c << 17 | c >>> 15);
b = c + d | 0;
c = d + t | 0;
d = a + t | 0;
return (d >>> 0) / 4294967296;
}
}
No, it is not possible to seed Math.random(), but it's fairly easy to write your own generator, or better yet, use an existing one.
Check out: this related question.
Also, see David Bau's blog for more information on seeding.
NOTE: Despite (or rather, because of) succinctness and apparent elegance, this algorithm is by no means a high-quality one in terms of randomness. Look for e.g. those listed in this answer for better results.
(Originally adapted from a clever idea presented in a comment to another answer.)
var seed = 1;
function random() {
var x = Math.sin(seed++) * 10000;
return x - Math.floor(x);
}
You can set seed to be any number, just avoid zero (or any multiple of Math.PI).
The elegance of this solution, in my opinion, comes from the lack of any "magic" numbers (besides 10000, which represents about the minimum amount of digits you must throw away to avoid odd patterns - see results with values 10, 100, 1000). Brevity is also nice.
It's a bit slower than Math.random() (by a factor of 2 or 3), but I believe it's about as fast as any other solution written in JavaScript.
No, but here's a simple pseudorandom generator, an implementation of Multiply-with-carry I adapted from Wikipedia (has been removed since):
var m_w = 123456789;
var m_z = 987654321;
var mask = 0xffffffff;
// Takes any integer
function seed(i) {
m_w = (123456789 + i) & mask;
m_z = (987654321 - i) & mask;
}
// Returns number between 0 (inclusive) and 1.0 (exclusive),
// just like Math.random().
function random()
{
m_z = (36969 * (m_z & 65535) + (m_z >> 16)) & mask;
m_w = (18000 * (m_w & 65535) + (m_w >> 16)) & mask;
var result = ((m_z << 16) + (m_w & 65535)) >>> 0;
result /= 4294967296;
return result;
}
Antti Sykäri's algorithm is nice and short. I initially made a variation that replaced JavaScript's Math.random when you call Math.seed(s), but then Jason commented that returning the function would be better:
Math.seed = function(s) {
return function() {
s = Math.sin(s) * 10000; return s - Math.floor(s);
};
};
// usage:
var random1 = Math.seed(42);
var random2 = Math.seed(random1());
Math.random = Math.seed(random2());
This gives you another functionality that JavaScript doesn't have: multiple independent random generators. That is especially important if you want to have multiple repeatable simulations running at the same time.
Please see Pierre L'Ecuyer's work going back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. There are others as well. Creating a (pseudo) random number generator on your own, if you are not an expert, is pretty dangerous, because there is a high likelihood of either the results not being statistically random or in having a small period. Pierre (and others) have put together some good (pseudo) random number generators that are easy to implement. I use one of his LFSR generators.
https://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~lecuyer/myftp/papers/handstat.pdf
Combining some of the previous answers, this is the seedable random function you are looking for:
Math.seed = function(s) {
var mask = 0xffffffff;
var m_w = (123456789 + s) & mask;
var m_z = (987654321 - s) & mask;
return function() {
m_z = (36969 * (m_z & 65535) + (m_z >>> 16)) & mask;
m_w = (18000 * (m_w & 65535) + (m_w >>> 16)) & mask;
var result = ((m_z << 16) + (m_w & 65535)) >>> 0;
result /= 4294967296;
return result;
}
}
var myRandomFunction = Math.seed(1234);
var randomNumber = myRandomFunction();
It's not possible to seed the builtin Math.random function, but it is possible to implement a high quality RNG in Javascript with very little code.
Javascript numbers are 64-bit floating point precision, which can represent all positive integers less than 2^53. This puts a hard limit to our arithmetic, but within these limits you can still pick parameters for a high quality Lehmer / LCG random number generator.
function RNG(seed) {
var m = 2**35 - 31
var a = 185852
var s = seed % m
return function () {
return (s = s * a % m) / m
}
}
Math.random = RNG(Date.now())
If you want even higher quality random numbers, at the cost of being ~10 times slower, you can use BigInt for the arithmetic and pick parameters where m is just able to fit in a double.
function RNG(seed) {
var m_as_number = 2**53 - 111
var m = 2n**53n - 111n
var a = 5667072534355537n
var s = BigInt(seed) % m
return function () {
return Number(s = s * a % m) / m_as_number
}
}
See this paper by Pierre l'Ecuyer for the parameters used in the above implementations:
https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/1999-68-225/S0025-5718-99-00996-5/S0025-5718-99-00996-5.pdf
And whatever you do, avoid all the other answers here that use Math.sin!
To write your own pseudo random generator is quite simple.
The suggestion of Dave Scotese is useful but, as pointed out by others, it is not quite uniformly distributed.
However, it is not because of the integer arguments of sin. It's simply because of the range of sin, which happens to be a one dimensional projection of a circle. If you would take the angle of the circle instead it would be uniform.
So instead of sin(x) use arg(exp(i * x)) / (2 * PI).
If you don't like the linear order, mix it a bit up with xor. The actual factor doesn't matter that much either.
To generate n pseudo random numbers one could use the code:
function psora(k, n) {
var r = Math.PI * (k ^ n)
return r - Math.floor(r)
}
n = 42; for(k = 0; k < n; k++) console.log(psora(k, n))
Please also note that you cannot use pseudo random sequences when real entropy is needed.
Many people who need a seedable random-number generator in Javascript these days are using David Bau's seedrandom module.
Math.random no, but the ran library solves this. It has almost all distributions you can imagine and supports seeded random number generation. Example:
ran.core.seed(0)
myDist = new ran.Dist.Uniform(0, 1)
samples = myDist.sample(1000)
Here's the adopted version of Jenkins hash, borrowed from here
export function createDeterministicRandom(): () => number {
let seed = 0x2F6E2B1;
return function() {
// Robert Jenkins’ 32 bit integer hash function
seed = ((seed + 0x7ED55D16) + (seed << 12)) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
seed = ((seed ^ 0xC761C23C) ^ (seed >>> 19)) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
seed = ((seed + 0x165667B1) + (seed << 5)) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
seed = ((seed + 0xD3A2646C) ^ (seed << 9)) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
seed = ((seed + 0xFD7046C5) + (seed << 3)) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
seed = ((seed ^ 0xB55A4F09) ^ (seed >>> 16)) & 0xFFFFFFFF;
return (seed & 0xFFFFFFF) / 0x10000000;
};
}
You can use it like this:
const deterministicRandom = createDeterministicRandom()
deterministicRandom()
// => 0.9872818551957607
deterministicRandom()
// => 0.34880331158638
No, like they said it is not possible to seed Math.random()
but you can install external package which make provision for that. i used these package which can be install using these command
npm i random-seed
the example is gotten from the package documentation.
var seed = 'Hello World',
rand1 = require('random-seed').create(seed),
rand2 = require('random-seed').create(seed);
console.log(rand1(100), rand2(100));
follow the link for documentation https://www.npmjs.com/package/random-seed
SIN(id + seed) is a very interesting replacement for RANDOM functions that cannot be seeded like SQLite:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/75089040/7776828
Most of the answers here produce biased results. So here's a tested function based on seedrandom library from github:
!function(f,a,c){var s,l=256,p="random",d=c.pow(l,6),g=c.pow(2,52),y=2*g,h=l-1;function n(n,t,r){function e(){for(var n=u.g(6),t=d,r=0;n<g;)n=(n+r)*l,t*=l,r=u.g(1);for(;y<=n;)n/=2,t/=2,r>>>=1;return(n+r)/t}var o=[],i=j(function n(t,r){var e,o=[],i=typeof t;if(r&&"object"==i)for(e in t)try{o.push(n(t[e],r-1))}catch(n){}return o.length?o:"string"==i?t:t+"\0"}((t=1==t?{entropy:!0}:t||{}).entropy?[n,S(a)]:null==n?function(){try{var n;return s&&(n=s.randomBytes)?n=n(l):(n=new Uint8Array(l),(f.crypto||f.msCrypto).getRandomValues(n)),S(n)}catch(n){var t=f.navigator,r=t&&t.plugins;return[+new Date,f,r,f.screen,S(a)]}}():n,3),o),u=new m(o);return e.int32=function(){return 0|u.g(4)},e.quick=function(){return u.g(4)/4294967296},e.double=e,j(S(u.S),a),(t.pass||r||function(n,t,r,e){return e&&(e.S&&v(e,u),n.state=function(){return v(u,{})}),r?(c[p]=n,t):n})(e,i,"global"in t?t.global:this==c,t.state)}function m(n){var t,r=n.length,u=this,e=0,o=u.i=u.j=0,i=u.S=[];for(r||(n=[r++]);e<l;)i[e]=e++;for(e=0;e<l;e++)i[e]=i[o=h&o+n[e%r]+(t=i[e])],i[o]=t;(u.g=function(n){for(var t,r=0,e=u.i,o=u.j,i=u.S;n--;)t=i[e=h&e+1],r=r*l+i[h&(i[e]=i[o=h&o+t])+(i[o]=t)];return u.i=e,u.j=o,r})(l)}function v(n,t){return t.i=n.i,t.j=n.j,t.S=n.S.slice(),t}function j(n,t){for(var r,e=n+"",o=0;o<e.length;)t[h&o]=h&(r^=19*t[h&o])+e.charCodeAt(o++);return S(t)}function S(n){return String.fromCharCode.apply(0,n)}if(j(c.random(),a),"object"==typeof module&&module.exports){module.exports=n;try{s=require("crypto")}catch(n){}}else"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define(function(){return n}):c["seed"+p]=n}("undefined"!=typeof self?self:this,[],Math);
function randIntWithSeed(seed, max=1) {
/* returns a random number between [0,max] including zero and max
seed can be either string or integer */
return Math.round(new Math.seedrandom('seed' + seed)()) * max
}
test for true randomness of this code: https://es6console.com/kkjkgur2/
There are plenty of good answers here but I had a similar issue with the additional requirement that I would like portability between Java's random number generator and whatever I ended up using in JavaScript.
I found the java-random package
These two pieces of code had identical output assuming the seed is the same:
Java:
Random randomGenerator = new Random(seed);
int randomInt;
for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
randomInt = randomGenerator.nextInt(50);
System.out.println(randomInt);
}
JavaScript:
let Random = require('java-random');
let rng = new Random(seed);
for (let i=0; i<10; i++) {
let val = rng.nextInt(50);
console.log(val);
}
Do what bryc suggests ... but before you use his cyrb128 hash function to initialise, note that the return statement throws away 32 bits of entropy. Exclusive-or the four values together = 0. You should probably make the first element (h2^h3^h4) >>> 0.
I have written a function that returns a seeded random number, it uses Math.sin to have a long random number and uses the seed to pick numbers from that.
Use :
seedRandom("k9]:2#", 15)
it will return your seeded number
the first parameter is any string value ; your seed.
the second parameter is how many digits will return.
function seedRandom(inputSeed, lengthOfNumber){
var output = "";
var seed = inputSeed.toString();
var newSeed = 0;
var characterArray = ['0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','a','b','c','d','e','f','g','h','i','j','k','l','m','n','o','p','q','r','s','t','u','v','w','y','x','z','A','B','C','D','E','F','G','H','I','J','K','L','M','N','O','P','Q','U','R','S','T','U','V','W','X','Y','Z','!','#','#','$','%','^','&','*','(',')',' ','[','{',']','}','|',';',':',"'",',','<','.','>','/','?','`','~','-','_','=','+'];
var longNum = "";
var counter = 0;
var accumulator = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < seed.length; i++){
var a = seed.length - (i+1);
for(var x = 0; x < characterArray.length; x++){
var tempX = x.toString();
var lastDigit = tempX.charAt(tempX.length-1);
var xOutput = parseInt(lastDigit);
addToSeed(characterArray[x], xOutput, a, i);
}
}
function addToSeed(character, value, a, i){
if(seed.charAt(i) === character){newSeed = newSeed + value * Math.pow(10, a)}
}
newSeed = newSeed.toString();
var copy = newSeed;
for(var i=0; i<lengthOfNumber*9; i++){
newSeed = newSeed + copy;
var x = Math.sin(20982+(i)) * 10000;
var y = Math.floor((x - Math.floor(x))*10);
longNum = longNum + y.toString()
}
for(var i=0; i<lengthOfNumber; i++){
output = output + longNum.charAt(accumulator);
counter++;
accumulator = accumulator + parseInt(newSeed.charAt(counter));
}
return(output)
}
A simple approach for a fixed seed:
function fixedrandom(p){
const seed = 43758.5453123;
return (Math.abs(Math.sin(p)) * seed)%1;
}
In PHP, there is function srand(seed) which generate fixed random value for particular seed.
But, in JS, there is no such inbuilt function.
However, we can write simple and short function.
Step 1: Choose some Seed (Fix Number).
var seed = 100;
Number should be Positive Integer and greater than 1, further explanation in Step 2.
Step 2: Perform Math.sin() function on Seed, it will give sin value of that number. Store this value in variable x.
var x;
x = Math.sin(seed); // Will Return Fractional Value between -1 & 1 (ex. 0.4059..)
sin() method returns a Fractional value between -1 and 1.And we don't need Negative value, therefore, in first step choose number greater than 1.
Step 3: Returned Value is a Fractional value between -1 and 1. So mulitply this value with 10 for making it more than 1.
x = x * 10; // 10 for Single Digit Number
Step 4: Multiply the value with 10 for additional digits
x = x * 10; // Will Give value between 10 and 99 OR
x = x * 100; // Will Give value between 100 and 999
Multiply as per requirement of digits.
The result will be in decimal.
Step 5: Remove value after Decimal Point by Math's Round (Math.round()) Method.
x = Math.round(x); // This will give Integer Value.
Step 6: Turn Negative Values into Positive (if any) by Math.abs method
x = Math.abs(x); // Convert Negative Values into Positive(if any)
Explanation End.Final Code
var seed = 111; // Any Number greater than 1
var digit = 10 // 1 => single digit, 10 => 2 Digits, 100 => 3 Digits and so. (Multiple of 10)
var x; // Initialize the Value to store the result
x = Math.sin(seed); // Perform Mathematical Sin Method on Seed.
x = x * 10; // Convert that number into integer
x = x * digit; // Number of Digits to be included
x = Math.round(x); // Remove Decimals
x = Math.abs(x); // Convert Negative Number into Positive
Clean and Optimized Functional Code
function random_seed(seed, digit = 1) {
var x = Math.abs(Math.round(Math.sin(seed++) * 10 * digit));
return x;
}
Then Call this function using
random_seed(any_number, number_of_digits)any_number is must and should be greater than 1.number_of_digits is optional parameter and if nothing passed, 1 Digit will return.
random_seed(555); // 1 Digit
random_seed(234, 1); // 1 Digit
random_seed(7895656, 1000); // 4 Digit
For a number between 0 and 100.
Number.parseInt(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100))
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.
I have a list of items (think, files in a directory), where the order of these items is arbitrarily managed by a user. The user can insert an item between other items, delete items, and move them around.
What is the best way to store the ordering as a property of each item so that when a specific item is inserted or moved, the ordering property of the other items is not affected? These objects will be stored in a database.
An ideal implementation would be able to support inifinite number of insertions/reorders.
The test I'm using to identify the limitations of the approach are as follows:
With 3 items x,y,z, repeatedly take the item on the left and put it between the other two; then take the object on the right and put it between the other two; keep going until some constraint is violated.
For others' reference, I have included some algorithms I have tried.
1.1. Decimals, double-precision
Store the order as a decimal. To insert an between two items with orders x and y, calculate its order as x/2+y/2.
Limitations:
Precision, or performance. Using doubles, when the denominator becomes too big, we end up with x/2+y/2==x . In Javascript, it can only handle 25 shuffles.
function doubles(x,y,z) {
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
//x,y,z
//x->v1: y,v1,z
//z->v2: y,v2,v1
var v1 = y/2 + z/2
var v2 = y/2 + v1/2
x = y
y = v2
z = v1
if (x == y) {
console.log(i)
break
}
}
}
>doubles(1, 1.5, 2)
>25
1.2. Decimals, BigDecimal
The same as above, but using BigDecimal from https://github.com/iriscouch/bigdecimal.js. In my test, the performance degraded unusably quickly. It might be a good choice for other frameworks, but not for client-side javascript.
I threw that implementation away and don't have it anymore.
2.1. Fractions
Store the order as a (numerator, denominator) integer tuple. To insert an item between items xN/xD and yN/yD, give it a value of (xN+yN)/(xD+yD) (which can easily be shown to be between the other two numbers).
Limitations:
precision or overflow.
function fractions(xN, xD, yN, yD, zN, zD){
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
//x,y,z
//x->v1: y,v1,z
//z->v2: y,v2,v1
var v1N = yN + zN, v1D = yD + zD
var v2N = yN + v1N, v2D = yD + v1D
xN = yN, xD=yD
yN = v2N, yD=v2D
zN = v1N, zd=v1D
if (!isFinite(xN) || !isFinite(xD)) { // overflow
console.log(i)
break
}
if (xN/xD == yN/yD) { //precision
console.log(i)
break
}
}
}
>fractions(1,1,3,2,2,1)
>737
2.2. Fractions with GCD reduction
The same as above, but reduce fractions using a Greatest Common Denomenator algorithm:
function gcd(x, y) {
if(!isFinite(x) || !isFinite(y)) {
return NaN
}
while (y != 0) {
var z = x % y;
x = y;
y = z;
}
return x;
}
function fractionsGCD(xN, xD, yN, yD, zN, zD) {
for (var i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
//x,y,z
//x->v1: y,v1,z
//z->v2: y,v2,v1
var v1N = yN + zN, v1D = yD + zD
var v2N = yN + v1N, v2D = yD + v1D
var v1gcd=gcd(v1N, v1D)
var v2gcd=gcd(v2N, v2D)
xN = yN, xD = yD
yN = v2N/v2gcd, yD=v2D/v2gcd
zN = v1N/v1gcd, zd=v1D/v1gcd
if (!isFinite(xN) || !isFinite(xD)) { // overflow
console.log(i)
break
}
if (xN/xD == yN/yD) { //precision
console.log(i)
break
}
}
}
>fractionsGCD(1,1,3,2,2,1)
>6795
3. Alphabetic
Use alphabetic ordering. The idea is to start with an alphabet (say, ascii printable range of [32..126]), and grow the strings. So, ('O' being the middle of our range), to insert between "a" and "c", use "b", to insert between "a" and "b", use "aO", and so forth.
Limitations:
The strings would get so long as to not fit in a database.
function middle(low, high) {
for(var i = 0; i < high.length; i++) {
if (i == low.length) {
//aa vs aaf
lowcode=32
hicode = high.charCodeAt(i)
return low + String.fromCharCode( (hicode - lowcode) / 2)
}
lowcode = low.charCodeAt(i)
hicode = high.charCodeAt(i)
if(lowcode==hicode) {
continue
}
else if(hicode - lowcode == 1) {
// aa vs ab
return low + 'O';
} else {
// aa vs aq
return low.slice(0,i) + String.fromCharCode(lowcode + (hicode - lowcode) / 2)
}
}
}
function alpha(x,y,z, N) {
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
//x,y,z
//x->v1: y,v1,z
//z->v2: y,v2,v1
var v1 = middle(y, z)
var v2 = middle(y, v1)
x = y
y = v2
z = v1
if(x.length > N) {
console.log(i)
break
}
}
}
>alpha('?', 'O', '_', 256)
1023
>alpha('?', 'O', '_', 512)
2047
Perhaps I have missed something fundamental and I will admit I know little enough about javascript, but surely you can just implement a doubly-linked list to deal with this? Then re-ordering a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h to insert X between d and e you just unlink d->e, link d->X and then link X->e and so on.
Because in any of the scenarios above, either you will run out of precision (and your infinite ordering is lost) or you'll end up with very long sort identifiers and no memory :)
Software axiom #1: KEEP IT SIMPLE until you have found a compelling, real and proven reason to make it more complicated.
So, I'd argue that it's extra and unnecessary code and maintenance to maintain your own order property when the DOM is already doing it for you. Why not just let the DOM maintain the order and you can dynamically generate a set of brain-dead simple sequence numbers for the current ordering any time you need it? CPUs are plenty fast to generate new sequence numbers for all items anytime you need it or anytime it changes. And, if you want to save this new ordering on the server, just send the whole sequence to the server.
Implementing one of these splitting sequences so you can always insert more objects without ever renumbering anything is going to be a lot of code and a lot of opportunities for bugs. You should not go there until it's been proven that you really need that level of complication.
Store the items in an array, and use splice() to insert and delete elements.
Or is this not acceptable because of the comment you made in response to the linked list answer?
The problem you are trying to solve is potentially insertion sort which has a simple implementation of O(n^2). But there are ways to improve it.
Suppose there is an order variable associated to each element. You can assign these orders smartly with large gaps between variables and get an amortized O(n*log(n)) mechanism. Look at (Insertion sort is nlogn)
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