I was trying to make a function that calculates the multiplicative persistence on my own.
It works when I pass in a number that has a multiplicative persistence value of 2 or less.
But when passing in a number whose multiplicative persistence is more than 2, it is returning an incorrect value.
Here is the function I wrote:
function persistence(num) {
let res = 10
let count=0
const helper = (number)=>{
res=1
const digits = number.toString().split('')
for(let digit of digits){
res = res* Number(digit)
}
count++
console.log(res,count)
return
}
if(num<10) return 0
if(res>=10){
if(count===0) helper(num)
helper(res)
}
return count
}
You can implement the digit multiplication by using a reduce; then it is simply a matter of returning either 0 if num < 10 or 1 + persistence(prod) if num > 10:
const persistence = (num) => {
if (num < 10) return 0
const prod = num.toString().split('').reduce((acc, d) => acc * d, 1)
return 1 + persistence(prod)
}
console.log(persistence(5))
console.log(persistence(437))
console.log(persistence(1379))
I'm stuck on a problem that requires me to display the full workings of a factorial function, for example, if the user wanted to workout 6!, i would need to display: 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1 = 720. Would i need to use an array for such?
This is what i have so far in order to workout the factorized value of any user given number, although this only outputs the final value, and not the fully expanded working out as i have shown above:
(the variable number contains the user input);
var f = [];
function factorizeFunction(number) { //this is the function that does the factorization calculations
if (number == 0 || number == 1)
return 1;
if (f[number] > 0)
return f[number];
return f[number] = factorizeFunction(number-1) * number;
}
document.getElementById("factorialTest").innerHTML = factorizeFunction(number);
any help on this would be appreciated!
One option is, on each iteration, push to an array which is passed down through the recursive call (or created on the initial call). At the end, return the array, joined by *, and also the sum of the array:
function factorizeFunction(number, arr = []) { //this is the function that does the factorization calculations
if (number == 0 || number == 1) arr.push(number);
else {
arr.push(number);
factorizeFunction(number - 1, arr);
}
return arr.join(' * ') + ' = ' + arr.reduce((a, b) => a * b, 1);
}
document.getElementById("factorialTest").innerHTML = factorizeFunction(5);
<div id="factorialTest"></div>
Use map and join methods.
const factorString = num => {
const nums = new Array(num).fill(0).map((_, i) => num - i);
let res = 1;
nums.forEach(x => res *= x);
return `${nums.join(' * ')} = ${res}`;
}
console.log(factorString(6))
You could change the return signature of the function and expect an array of an array with the factors and the product.
function factorize(number) {
if (number === 0 || number === 1) return [[1], 1];
var [factors, product] = factorize(number - 1);
return [[...factors, number], product * number];
}
console.log(factorize(5));
I'm trying to build a function that takes a variable number of arguments.
The function takes n inputs and calculates all possible sums of addition and subtraction e.g. if the args are 1,2,3
1 + 2 + 3
1 - 2 - 3
1 + 2 - 3
1 - 2 + 3
Finally, the function outputs the sum that is closest to zero. In this case, that answer would just be 0.
I'm having a lot of problems figuring out how to loop n arguments to use all possible combinations of the + and - operators.
I've managed to build a function that either adds all or subtracts all variables, but I'm stuck on how to approach the various +'s and -'s, especially when considering multiple possible variables.
var sub = 0;
var add = 0;
function sumAll() {
var i;
for (i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
sub -= arguments[i];
}
for (i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) {
add += arguments[i];
}
return add;
return sub;
};
console.log(add, sub); // just to test the outputs
I'd like to calculate all possible arrangements of + and - for any given number of inputs (always integers, both positive and negative). Suggestions on comparing sums to zero are welcome, though I haven't attempted it yet and would rather try before asking on that part. Thanks.
I'd iterate through the possible bits of a number. Eg, if there are 3 arguments, then there are 3 bits, and the highest number representable by those bits is 2 ** 3 - 1, or 7 (when all 3 bits are set, 111, or 1+2+4). Then, iterate from 0 to 7 and check whether each bit index is set or not.
Eg, on the first iteration, when the number is 0, the bits are 000, which corresponds to +++ - add all 3 arguments up.
On the second iteration, when the number is 1, the bits are 001, which corresponds to -++, so subtract the first argument, and add the other two arguments.
The third iteration would have 2, or 010, or +-+.
The third iteration would have 3, or 011, or +--.
The third iteration would have 4, or 100, or -++.
Continue the pattern until the end, while keeping track of the total closest to zero so far.
You can also return immediately if a subtotal of 0 is found, if you want.
const sumAll = (...args) => {
const limit = 2 ** args.length - 1; // eg, 2 ** 3 - 1 = 7
let totalClosestToZeroSoFar = Infinity;
for (let i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
// eg '000', or '001', or '010', or '011', or '100', etc
const bitStr = i.toString(2).padStart(args.length, '0');
let subtotal = 0;
console.log('i:', i, 'bitStr:', bitStr);
args.forEach((arg, bitPos) => {
if (bitStr[args.length - 1 - bitPos] === '0') {
console.log('+', arg);
subtotal += arg;
} else {
console.log('-', arg);
subtotal -= arg;
}
});
console.log('subtotal', subtotal);
if (Math.abs(subtotal) < Math.abs(totalClosestToZeroSoFar)) {
totalClosestToZeroSoFar = subtotal;
}
}
return totalClosestToZeroSoFar;
};
console.log('final', sumAll(1, 2, 3));
You can "simplify" by replacing the [args.length - 1 - bitPos] with [bitPos] for the same result, but it'll look a bit more confusing - eg 3 (011, or +--), would become 110 (--+).
It's a lot shorter without all the logs that demonstrate that the code is working as desired:
const sumAll = (...args) => {
const limit = 2 ** args.length - 1;
let totalClosestToZeroSoFar = Infinity;
for (let i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
const bitStr = i.toString(2).padStart(args.length, '0');
let subtotal = 0;
args.forEach((arg, bitPos) => {
subtotal += (bitStr[bitPos] === '0' ? -1 : 1) * arg;
});
if (Math.abs(subtotal) < Math.abs(totalClosestToZeroSoFar)) {
totalClosestToZeroSoFar = subtotal;
}
}
return totalClosestToZeroSoFar;
};
console.log('final', sumAll(1, 2, 3));
You can cut the number of operations in half by arbitrarily choosing a sign for the first digit. Eg. currently, with sumAll(9, 1), both an answer of 8 (9 - 1) and -8 (1 - 9) would be valid, because they're both equally close to 0. No matter the input, if +- produces a number closest to 0, then -+ does as well, only with the opposite sign. Similarly, if ++--- produces a number closest to 0, then --+++ does as well, with the opposite sign. By choosing a sign for the first digit, you might be forcing the calculated result to have just one sign, but that won't affect the algorithm's result's distance from 0.
It's not much of an improvement (eg, 10 arguments, 2 ** 10 - 1 -> 1023 iterations improves to 2 ** 9 - 1 -> 511 iterations), but it's something.
const sumAll = (...args) => {
let initialDigit = args.shift();
const limit = 2 ** args.length - 1;
let totalClosestToZeroSoFar = Infinity;
for (let i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
const bitStr = i.toString(2).padStart(args.length, '0');
let subtotal = initialDigit;
args.forEach((arg, bitPos) => {
subtotal += (bitStr[bitPos] === '0' ? -1 : 1) * arg;
});
if (Math.abs(subtotal) < Math.abs(totalClosestToZeroSoFar)) {
totalClosestToZeroSoFar = subtotal;
}
}
return totalClosestToZeroSoFar;
};
console.log('final', sumAll(1, 2, 3));
The variable argument requirement is unrelated to the algorithm, which seems to be the meat of the question. You can use the spread syntax instead of arguments if you wish.
As for the algorithm, if the parameter numbers can be positive or negative, a good place to start is a naive brute force O(2n) algorithm. For each possible operation location, we recurse on adding a plus sign at that location and recurse separately on adding a minus sign. On the way back up the call tree, pick whichever choice ultimately led to an equation that was closest to zero.
Here's the code:
const closeToZero = (...nums) =>
(function addExpr(nums, total, i=1) {
if (i < nums.length) {
const add = addExpr(nums, total + nums[i], i + 1);
const sub = addExpr(nums, total - nums[i], i + 1);
return Math.abs(add) < Math.abs(sub) ? add : sub;
}
return total;
})(nums, nums[0])
;
console.log(closeToZero(1, 17, 6, 10, 15)); // 1 - 17 - 6 + 10 + 15
Now, the question is whether this is performing extra work. Can we find overlapping subproblems? If so, we can memoize previous answers and look them up in a table. The problem is, in part, the negative numbers: it's not obvious how to determine if we're getting closer or further from the target based on a subproblem we've already solved for a given chunk of the array.
I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader and ponder it myself, but it seems likely that there's room for optimization. Here's a related question that might offer some insight in the meantime.
This is also known as a variation of the partition problem, whereby we are looking for a minimal difference between the two parts we have divided the arguments into (e.g., the difference between [1,2] and [3] is zero). Here's one way to enumerate all the differences we can create and pick the smallest:
function f(){
let diffs = new Set([Math.abs(arguments[0])])
for (let i=1; i<arguments.length; i++){
const diffs2 = new Set
for (let d of Array.from(diffs)){
diffs2.add(Math.abs(d + arguments[i]))
diffs2.add(Math.abs(d - arguments[i]))
}
diffs = diffs2
}
return Math.min(...Array.from(diffs))
}
console.log(f(5,3))
console.log(f(1,2,3))
console.log(f(1,2,3,5))
I like to join in on this riddle :)
the issue can be described as fn = fn - 1 + an * xn , where x is of X and a0,...,an is of {-1, 1}
For a single case: X * A = y
For all cases X (*) TA = Y , TA = [An!,...,A0]
Now we have n! different A
//consider n < 32
// name mapping TA: SIGN_STATE_GENERATOR, Y: RESULT_VECTOR, X: INPUT
const INPUT = [1,2,3,3,3,1]
const SIGN_STATE_GENERATOR = (function*(n){
if(n >= 32) throw Error("Its working on UInt32 - max length is 32 in this implementation")
let uint32State = -1 >>> 32-n;
while(uint32State){
yield uint32State--;
}
})(INPUT.length)
const RESULT_VECTOR = []
let SIGN_STATE = SIGN_STATE_GENERATOR.next().value
while (SIGN_STATE){
RESULT_VECTOR.push(
INPUT.reduce(
(a,b, index) =>
a + ((SIGN_STATE >> index) & 1 ? 1 : -1) * b,
0
)
)
SIGN_STATE = SIGN_STATE_GENERATOR.next().value
}
console.log(RESULT_VECTOR)
I spent time working on the ability so apply signs between each item in an array. This feels like the most natural approach to me.
const input1 = [1, 2, 3]
const input2 = [1, 2, 3, -4]
const input3 = [-3, 6, 0, -5, 9]
const input4 = [1, 17, 6, 10, 15]
const makeMatrix = (input, row = [{ sign: 1, number: input[0] }]) => {
if(row.length === input.length) return [ row ]
const number = input[row.length]
return [
...makeMatrix(input, row.concat({ sign: 1, number })),
...makeMatrix(input, row.concat({ sign: -1, number }))
]
}
const checkMatrix = matrix => matrix.reduce((best, row) => {
const current = {
calculation: row.map((item, i) => `${i > 0 ? item.sign === -1 ? "-" : "+" : ""}(${item.number})`).join(""),
value: row.reduce((sum, item) => sum += (item.number * item.sign), 0)
}
return best.value === undefined || Math.abs(best.value) > Math.abs(current.value) ? current : best
})
const processNumbers = input => {
console.log("Generating matrix for:", JSON.stringify(input))
const matrix = makeMatrix(input)
console.log("Testing the following matrix:", JSON.stringify(matrix))
const winner = checkMatrix(matrix)
console.log("Closest to zero was:", winner)
}
processNumbers(input1)
processNumbers(input2)
processNumbers(input3)
processNumbers(input4)
Ive been reading everything online but its not exactly what I need
var x = 'a1b2c3d4e5'
I need something to get me to
using 1 the answer should be abcde
using 2 the answer should be 12345
using 3 the answer should be b3e
the idea behind it if using 1 it grabs 1 skips 1
the idea behind it if using 2 it grabs 2 skips 2
the idea behind it if using 3 it grabs 3 skips 3
I dont want to use a for loop as it is way to long especially when your x is longer than 300000 chars.
is there a regex I can use or a function that Im not aware of?
update
I'm trying to some how implement your answers but when I use 1 that's when I face the problem. I did mention trying to stay away from for-loops the reason is resources on the server. The more clients connect the slower everything becomes. So far array.filter seem a lot quicker.
As soon as I've found it I'll accept the answer.
As others point out, it's not like regular expressions are magic; there would still be an underlying looping mechanism. Don't worry though, when it comes to loops, 300,000 is nothing -
console.time('while')
let x = 0
while (x++ < 300000)
x += 1
console.timeEnd('while')
// while: 5.135 ms
console.log(x)
// 300000
Make a big string, who cares? 300,000 is nothing -
// 10 chars repeated 30,000 times
const s =
'abcdefghij'.repeat(30000)
console.time('while string')
let x = 0
let interval = 2
let values = []
while (x < s.length)
{ values.push(s[x])
x += interval
}
let result = values.join('')
console.timeEnd('while string')
// while string: 31.990ms
console.log(result)
console.log(result.length)
// acegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegia...
// 150000
Or use an interval of 3 -
const s =
'abcdefghij'.repeat(30000)
console.time('while string')
let x = 0
let interval = 3
let values = []
while (x < s.length)
{ values.push(s[x])
x += interval
}
let result = values.join('')
console.timeEnd('while string')
// while string: 25.055ms
console.log(result)
console.log(result.length)
// adgjcfibehadgjcfibehadgjcfibehadgjcfibe...
// 100000
Using a larger interval obviously results in fewer loops, so the total execution time is lower. The resulting string is shorter too.
const s =
'abcdefghij'.repeat(30000)
console.time('while string')
let x = 0
let interval = 25 // big interval
let values = []
while (x < s.length)
{ values.push(s[x])
x += interval
}
let result = values.join('')
console.timeEnd('while string')
// while string: 6.130
console.log(result)
console.log(result.length)
// afafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafa...
// 12000
You can achieve functional style and stack-safe speed simultaneously -
const { loop, recur } = require('./lib')
const everyNth = (s, n) =>
loop
( (acc = '', x = 0) =>
x >= s.length
? acc
: recur(acc + s[x], x + n)
)
const s = 'abcdefghij'.repeat(30000)
console.time('loop/recur')
const result = everyNth(s, 2)
console.timeEnd('loop/recur')
// loop/recur: 31.615 ms
console.log(result)
console.log(result.length)
// acegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegia ...
// 150000
The two are easily implemented -
const recur = (...values) =>
({ recur, values })
const loop = f =>
{ let acc = f()
while (acc && acc.recur === recur)
acc = f(...acc.values)
return acc
}
// ...
module.exports =
{ loop, recur, ... }
And unlike the [...str].filter(...) solutions which will always iterate through every element, our custom loop is much more flexible and receives speed benefit when a higher interval n is used -
console.time('loop/recur')
const result = everyNth(s, 25)
console.timeEnd('loop/recur')
// loop/recur: 5.770ms
console.log(result)
console.log(result.length)
// afafafafafafafafafafafafafafa...
// 12000
const recur = (...values) =>
({ recur, values })
const loop = f =>
{ let acc = f()
while (acc && acc.recur === recur)
acc = f(...acc.values)
return acc
}
const everyNth = (s, n) =>
loop
( (acc = '', x = 0) =>
x >= s.length
? acc
: recur(acc + s[x], x + n)
)
const s = 'abcdefghij'.repeat(30000)
console.time('loop/recur')
const result = everyNth(s, 2)
console.timeEnd('loop/recur')
// loop/recur: 31.615 ms
console.log(result)
console.log(result.length)
// acegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegiacegia ...
// 150000
Since I'm not an expert of regex, I'd use some fancy es6 functions to filter your chars.
var x = 'a1b2c3d4e5'
var n = 2;
var result = [...x].filter((char, index) => index % n == 0);
console.log(result);
Note that because 0 % 2 will also return 0, this will always return the first char. You can filter the first char by adding another simple check.
var result = [...x].filter((char, index) => index > 0 && index % n == 0);
As a variant:
function getNth(str, nth) {
return [...str].filter((_, i) => (i + 1) % nth === 0).join('');
}
console.log(getNth('a1b2c3d4e5', 2)); // 12345
console.log(getNth('a1b2c3d4e5', 3)); // b3e
What I'd suggest, to avoid having to iterate over the entire array, is to step straight into the known nth's.
Here's a couple of flavors:
function nthCharSubstr(str, nth) {
let res = "";
for (let i = nth - 1; i < str.length; i += nth) {
res += string[i];
}
return res;
}
More ES6-y:
const nthCharSubstr = (str, nth) =>
[...Array(parseInt(str.length / nth)).keys()] // find out the resulting number of characters and create and array with the exact length
.map(i => nth + i * nth - 1) // each item in the array now represents the resulting character's index
.reduce((res, i) => res + str[i], ""); // pull out each exact character and group them in a final string
This solution considers this comment as being valid.
I can't get my program to work. The problem is a kata from Codewars:
Write a function, persistence, that takes in a positive parameter num and returns its multiplicative persistence, which is the number of times you must multiply the digits in num until you reach a single digit.
Example:
persistence(39) === 3 // because 3*9 = 27, 2*7 = 14, 1*4=4
// and 4 has only one digit
persistence(999) === 4 // because 9*9*9 = 729, 7*2*9 = 126,
// 1*2*6 = 12, and finally 1*2 = 2
persistence(4) === 0 // because 4 is already a one-digit number
I've gone through answers to similar problems here already. This is my code:
var count = 0;
var product = 1;
function persistence(num) {
if (num.toString().length == 1) {
count+=0;
return count;
}
for (i of num.toString()) {
product *= Number(i);
}
count++;
var newProduct = product;
// reset product to 1 so that line ten does not
// start with the product from the last loop
product = 1;
persistence(newProduct);
}
I can't tell what the problem is. Initially I was getting a maximum call stack exceeded error. I researched that and realized I did this for my base case:
if (num.length == 1) {
count+=0;
return count;
}
instead of
if (num.toString().length == 1) {
count+=0;
return count;
}
My logic seems sound. What could the problem be?
Here's a much better way of solving your problem, complete with comments that I think gives a pretty clear explanation of what's going on.
function persistence(num) {
// Create a new function that you'll use inside your main function
function multiply(n) {
// Multiply the first number by next number in the array
// until the entire array has been iterated over
return n.reduce(function(a,b){return a*b;});
}
// Set the count to 0
var count =0;
// Use a while loop to iterate the same number of times
// as there are digits in num
while (num.toString().length > 1) {
// Splits the num into an array
num= num.toString().split("");
// Runs multiply on our num array and sets num to the returned
// value in preparation of the next loop.
// The multiply function will for 39 run 3 * 9 = 27,
// next iteration we've set num to 27 so multiply will be
// 2 * 7 = 14, then 1 * 4 = 4, and since num 4 now
// has a length <= 1 the loop stops.
num = multiply(num);
// Increase count by 1 each iteration, then run the next
// iteration in the loop with the new value for num being
// set to the result of the first multiplication.
count++;
}
return count; // return the value of count
}
console.log(persistence(39));// === 3 // because 3*9 = 27, 2*7 = 14, 1*4=4
// and 4 has only one digit
console.log(persistence(999));// === 4 // because 9*9*9 = 729, 7*2*9 = 126,
// 1*2*6 = 12, and finally 1*2 = 2
console.log(persistence(4));// === 0 // because 4 is already a one-digit number
https://jsfiddle.net/8xmpnzng/
Use "of" instead of "in". "in" looks for properties. "of" increments an array.
var count = 0;
var product = 1;
function persistence(num) {
if (num.toString().length == 1) {
count+=0;
return count;
}
for (i of num.toString()) {
product *= Number(i);
}
count++;
var newProduct = product;
// reset product to 1 so that line ten does not
// start with the product from the last loop
product = 1;
persistence(newProduct);
}
I'm pretty sure it's this block:
for (i in num.toString()) {
product *= Number(i);
}
That's a for...in loop, which is used to iterate over keys in an object. If you want to multiply each digit of the num string together, you could split the string into an array, and use the reduce method (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Array/Reduce):
//this coerces the number into a string
const numString = num + ''
//this is the function to pass as the first argument into the reduce method
const multiplyAll = (accumulator, currentVal) => accumulator * Number(currentVal)
let product = numString.split('').reduce(multiplyAll, 1)
It's generally best practice to avoid declaring global variables outside of a function's scope, but you can do a cool trick with your recursion where you declare your count as a parameter in your function like so:
function persistence(num, count = 0) {
And then when you call it again with recursion, you simply add 1 like so:
function persistence(product, count + 1) {
Simpler way of Persistence:
let countIteration = 1;
function persistence(num) {
let numStr = num.toString();
if(numStr.toString().length === 1) {
return 0;
}
let numArr = numStr.split("");
let persistRes = numArr.reduce((acc, curr) => acc = curr * acc);
if (persistRes.toString().length !== 1) {
countIteration += 1;
return persistence(persistRes);
}
else {
return countIteration;
}
}
console.log(persistence(39)); // === 3
console.log(persistence(15)); // === 1
console.log(persistence(999));// === 4