Develop Reference

Algorithm to get maximum affordable amount of items with individual costs and limits

i got a small headache over a problem regarding an efficient way to distribute a fixed amount of points evenly between n items that got different costs and limits. Costs don't increase with each item.
Lets say i got 3 Items:
Name
Cost
Limit
A
25
220
B
30
20
C
50
60
Further we got fixed Points: 5000.
I want to know how many times i can buy each.
My curent solution runs a loop and deducts the cost from points until either all limits are reached or points ran out.
http://jsfiddle.net/nasc8rfL/
var points = 5000;
var costA = 25;
var costB = 30;
...
var limitA = 220;
...
var maxA = 0;
while (points > 0){
if (points >= costA && limitA > 0){
points -=costA;
limitA -=1;
maxA +=1;
};
if (points >= costB && limitB > 0){
points -=costB;
limitB -=1;
maxB +=1;
};
if (points >= costC && limitC > 0){
points -=costC;
limitC -=1;
maxC +=1;
};
if((points < costA) and (points < costB) and (points <costC)) break;
}
console.log(maxA,maxB,maxC);
Eventually it will not stay at A,B,C but variable number of elements(not more than 20) so i'd loop through each element instead of 3 IFs.
I dont actually have to deduct points i just have to know how many of each item can be bought. I feel like im missing something and there is an easier way to determine the number of each.
I've thought about weighting them based on their limits but my head doesnt want to work with me and im pretty stuck right now.
In addition im a beginner in javascript, so if you guys got some tips to get the shown loop faster or more convinient maybe with something like
function func(arr){
arr.forEach(x=>{doSomething();})
i would be more than happy.

Your approach isn't bad. The algorithm can be sped up a bit by
keeping the elements in a list, and not just visiting each during each iteration of your outer loop, but by kicking it out of the list once it hit its limit
not just buying one of each item per round, but as many as feasible if you'd by equally many of each while staying within budget.
const points = 5000;
const items = [
{name: "A", cost: 25, limit: 220},
{name: "B", cost: 30, limit: 60},
{name: "C", cost: 50, limit: 20},
];
let amounts = Object.fromEntries(items.map(i => [i.name, 0]));
let available = items;
let toSpend = points;
do {
available = available.filter(i => amounts[i.name] < i.limit && i.cost <= toSpend);
const maxAmount = Math.max(1, Math.floor(toSpend / available.reduce((s, i) => s+i.cost, 0)));
for (const a of available) {
const amount = Math.min(maxAmount, a.limit - amounts[a.name]);
if (amount * a.cost <= toSpend) {
amounts[a.name] += amount;
toSpend -= amount * a.cost;
} else {
break;
}
}
} while (available.length);
console.log(amounts);
console.log(`Leftover: ${toSpend}`);

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).

How to distribute values linearly

I have a total of 10,000 that I want distributed among 99 points, not divided equally but on an increasing linear curve. So while the first point may be worth only [e.g.] 10, each following point would be worth more until the final one is worth [e.g.] 250 or so. But all points need total the 10,000. How could I do that?
// Edit: The first and last values of 10 and 250 are just examples, they could be anything really. The total though (10,000) needs to be variable, so I could change it to 20,000 later if needed.

Take the 99 cells with values [1,2,3,4,..,99] and multiply each number by S/4950 where S is the desired sum (e.g. S=10,000).

Starting at 3, and going up to 199, across 99 points, totaling 10,000. Is this a HW question?
var total = 0;
for (var i = 1; i < 100; i += 1) {
total += i * 2 + 1;
}
alert(total);

This is pretty vague but if the first point has value X and the gap between successive points is Y then the total of 99 such points is
(99 * X) + (0.5 * 99 * 98 * Y)
You can use this formula to play around with a suitable value of X and Y such that your total of 10,000 is satisfied. For example you could fix X first then solve the total for Y but this may not yield an integer result which may make it unsuitable. Unfortunately for certain totals there may not be integer solutions X and Y but your requirements seem rather arbitrary so I am sure you can use the above to arrive at a suitable value of X,Y and the total for your needs. It may serve you until you get a better answer.

I had a similar thing I wanted to do. Even though it is a bit late, perhaps this can help others.
Came up with the following:
var total = 10000;
var len_array = 99;
var points_array = [];
var next_no
var sum_check =0;
for (var i = 0; i < (len_array); i += 1) {
next_no = ((1- i/len_array)/(0.5 * len_array + 0.5)) * total
points_array.push(next_no);
sum_check = sum_check + next_no;
}

Calculate maximum available rows and columns to fill with N amount of items

By reviewing this and this, I've come up with a function, that's probably more complex than it should be, but, man, my math sux:
function tablize(elements)
{
var root = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(elements));
var factors = [];
for (var i = 1; i <= root; i++)
{
if (elements % i === 0)
{
factors.push([i, elements / i]);
}
}
var smallest = null;
for (var f = 0; f < factors.length; f++)
{
var factor = factors[f];
var current = Math.abs(factor[0] - factor[1]);
if (!smallest || factors[smallest] > factor)
{
smallest = f;
}
}
return factors[smallest];
}
While this does work, it provides results I'm not satisfied with.
For instance - 7, it's divided in 1x7, where I'd like it to be 3x3. That's the minimum, optimal, grid size needed to fill with 7 elements.
Also - 3, it's divided in 1x3, where I'd like it to be 2x2.
I need this for a live camera feed frame distribution on a monitor, but I'm totally lost. The only way I can think of is building an extra function to feed with previously generated number and divide again, but that seems wrong.
What is the optimal solution to solve this?

For squares:
function squareNeeded(num) {
return Math.ceil(Math.sqrt(num));
}
http://jsfiddle.net/aKNVq/
(I think you mean the smallest square of a whole number that is bigger than the given amount, because if you meant a rectangle, then your example for seven would be 2*4 instead of 3*3.)

reordering objects without impacting other objects

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)