I'm trying to find the various possibilities to equal 100 with digits 1-9. This function produces the desired results, but also others which I had not intended. The other results add up to 100, but without some of these digits, like leaving out 3 or 6. Why are these other results included?
var nums = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
var signs = ["+", "-", "N"];
var results = [];
find100("1");
function find100(expr) {
if (eval(expr.replace(/N/g, "")) === 100) {
results.push(expr);
} else {
for (var i = eval(expr.substring(expr.length - 1, expr.length)) + 1; i <=
nums.length; i++) {
signs.forEach(function(sign) {
var expr2 = expr;
find100(expr2 += sign + i);
});
}
}
}
Desired output:
1+2+3-4+5+6+78+9,
1+2+34-5+67-8+9,
1+23-4+5+6+78-9,
1+23-4+56+7+8+9,
12+3+4+5-6-7+89,
12+3-4+5+67+8+9,
12-3-4+5-6+7+89,
123+4-5+67-89,
123+45-67+8-9,
123-4-5-6-7+8-9,
123-45-67+89
It's adding undesired results because your first loop iterates through each of the remaining numbers and adds ANY results that evaluate to 100, even if it has skipped a number to do so. If the method finds a solution for a number it adds the solution to results - which is correct, however if it doesn't find a solution it moves onto the next number anyway. This is the source of the skipped numbers. If there was no solution for a number it should have not continued to the next number.
As to how to fix it, that's a different question (but why not ...)
The difference here is that you can ONLY get a result if for any number there exists an expression that uses all remaining numbers.
var results = [];
var operations = [ "+", "-", "" ];
var expected = 100;
var limit = 10;
function findExpression(expr, next) {
if (next === limit) {
eval(expr) === expected && results.push(expr);
} else {
operations.forEach(function(operation) {
findExpression(expr + operation + next, next + 1);
});
}
}
$(document).ready(function() {
findExpression("1", 2);
for(var i=0; i<results.length; i++) {
$("#foo").append(results[i]+"<br />");
}
});
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.12.0/jquery.min.js"></script>
<body>
<div id="foo"></div>
</body>
The reason that some digits are skipped is in this loop:
for (var i = eval(expr.substring(expr.length - 1, expr.length)) + 1; i <=
nums.length; i++) {
On the second iteration it will increment that last digit in the expression, which will therefore create a gap in the continued recursion. In short, that loop should not be there.
I would suggest a solution without using eval, not because it would be somehow dangerous, but because it is responsible for a major performance hit.
Instead you could keep a numerical variable updated to what the expression represents. In fact, I suggest to use two such variables, one for the sum of the previous terms, and another for the last term, because that one might need to still be extended with more digits.
To facilitate the different way the signs influence the expression, I have defined a function per sign: it takes the above mentioned numerical values, and also the last digit, and returns the updated values.
Here is a working snippet (ES6 syntax) using that idea, and you'll notice the dramatic performance improvement:
function find100(digits, signs) {
const loop = (expr, i, [sum, value]) =>
// Not yet all digits used?
i < digits.length ?
// Apply each of the signs in turn:
Object.keys(signs).reduce( (results, sign) =>
// Recurse, passing on the modified expression, the sum of the
// preceding terms, and the value of the last term. As '+' is
// not any different than '' before the first digit, skip '+':
sign != '+' || i ?
results.concat(loop(expr+sign+digits[i], i+1,
signs[sign](sum, value, digits[i]))) :
results,
[] ) :
// All digits were used. Did it match?
sum+value == 100 ? [expr] : [];
// Start recursion
return loop('', 0, [0, 0]);
}
var nums = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
// define how each sign should modify the expression value:
var signs = {
'+': (sum, value, digit) => [sum+value, digit],
'-': (sum, value, digit) => [sum+value, -digit],
'' : (sum, value, digit) => [sum, value*10 + (value<0 ? -digit : digit)]
};
var results = find100(nums, signs);
console.log(results);
Note that this also outputs the following expression:
-1+2-3+4+5+6+78+9
This is because the code also tries the signs before the first digit. I thought it would be relevant to have this also included in the output.
Related
I've been trying to solve the following problem in codewars using recursion:
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.
For example (Input --> Output):
39 --> 3 (because 3*9 = 27, 2*7 = 14, 1*4 = 4 and 4 has only one digit)
999 --> 4 (because 9*9*9 = 729, 7*2*9 = 126, 1*2*6 = 12, and finally 1*2 = 2)
4 --> 0 (because 4 is already a one-digit number)
Here's what I've tried:
var numOfIterations = 0;
function persistence(num) {
//code me
var i;
var digits=[];
var result = 1;
if (num.toString().length==1) {
return numOfIterations;
} else {
numOfIterations++;
digits = Array.from(String(num), Number);
for (i=0;i<digits.size;i++) {
result=result*digits[i];
}
persistence(result);
}
}
But for some reason, instead of returning the number of iterations, it returns undefined. I've been told that I'm not using recursion correctly, but I just can't find the problem.
Other answers have explained what's wrong with your code. I just want to point out a simpler implementation:
const multiplyDigits = (n) =>
n < 10 ? n : (n % 10) * multiplyDigits (n / 10 | 0);
const persistence = (n) =>
n < 10 ? 0 : 1 + persistence (multiplyDigits (n));
[39, 999, 4] .forEach (t => console .log (`${t}:\t${persistence (t)}`));
multiplyDigits does just what it says, recursively multiplying the final digit by the number left when you remove that last digit (Think of | 0 as like Math .floor), and stopping when n is a single digit.
persistence checks to see if we're already a single digit, and if so, returns zero. If not, we add one to the value we get when we recur on the multiple of the digits.
I've been told that I'm not using recursion correctly
You're recursing, but you're not returning the result of that recursion. Imagine for a moment just this structure:
function someFunc() {
if (someCondition) {
return 1;
} else {
anotherFunc();
}
}
If someCondition is false, what does someFunc() return? Nothing. So it's result is undefined.
Regardless of any recursion, at its simplest if you want to return a result from a function then you need to return it:
function persistence(num) {
//...
if (num.toString().length==1) {
//...
} else {
//...
return persistence(result); // <--- here
}
}
As #David wrote in his answer, you were missing the return of the recursive call to itself.
Plus you were using digits.size instead of digits.length.
Anyway consider that one single digit being zero will collpse the game because that's enough to set the result to zero despite how many digits the number is made of.
To deal with the reset of numOfIterations, at first I tried using function.caller to discriminate between recursive call and direct call and set the variable accordingly. Since that method is deprecated as shown here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Function/caller
I opted for the optional argument iteration that gets set to zero as default, to keep track of that value while it goes down the call stack. This solution still fulfills the fact that the caller doesn't need to know a new interface for the function to work.
//var numOfIterations = 0;
function persistence(num, iteration=0) {
/*
Commented strategy using the function.caller
working but deprecated so I can't recommend anymore
used optional argument iteration instead
//gets the name of the caller scope
let callerName = persistence.caller?.name;
//if it's different from the name of this function
if (callerName !== 'persistence')
//reset the numOfIterations
numOfIterations = 0;
*/
var digits=[];
if (num.toString().length==1){
return iteration;
} else {
var result = 1;
digits = Array.from(String(num), Number);
for (let i=0;i<digits.length;i++) {
result = result * digits[i];
}
return persistence(result, iteration+1);
}
}
console.log( persistence(39) ); //-> 3
console.log( persistence(999 ) ); //-> 4
console.log( persistence(4) ); //-> 0
You can do something like this
const persistenceTailRecursive = (num, iterations = 0) => {
const str = '' + num;
if(str.length === 1){
return iterations;
}
return persistenceTailRecursive(str.split('').reduce((res, a) => res * parseInt(a), 1), iterations + 1)
}
const persistence = (num) => {
const str = '' + num;
if(str.length === 1){
return 0;
}
return 1 + persistence(str.split('').reduce((res, a) => res * parseInt(a), 1))
}
console.log(persistenceTailRecursive(93))
console.log(persistenceTailRecursive(999))
console.log(persistence(93))
console.log(persistence(999))
There are 2 versions
1 tailRecursive call the same method with the exact signature (preventing stackoverflow in some languages like scala)
2 basic the result is calculated at the end
I just took a coding test online and this one question really bothered me. My solution was correct but was rejected for being unoptimized. The question is as following:
Write a function combineTheGivenNumber taking two arguments:
numArray: number[]
num: a number
The function should check all the concatenation pairs that can result in making a number equal to num and return their count.
E.g. if numArray = [1, 212, 12, 12] & num = 1212 then we will have return value of 3 from combineTheGivenNumber
The pairs are as following:
numArray[0]+numArray[1]
numArray[2]+numArray[3]
numArray[3]+numArray[2]
The function I wrote for this purpose is as following:
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
//convert all numbers to strings for easy concatenation
numArray = numArray.map(e => e+'');
//also convert the `hay` to string for easy comparison
num = num+'';
let pairCounts = 0;
// itereate over the array to get pairs
numArray.forEach((e,i) => {
numArray.forEach((f,j) => {
if(i!==j && num === (e+f)) {
pairCounts++;
}
});
});
return pairCounts;
}
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber([1,212,12,12],1212));
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber([4,21,42,1],421));
From my experience, I know conversion of number to string is slow in JS, but I am not sure whether my approach is wrong/lack of knowledge or does the tester is ignorant of this fact. Can anyone suggest further optimization of the code snipped?
Elimination of string to number to string will be a significant speed boost but I am not sure how to check for concatenated numbers otherwise.
Elimination of string to number to string will be a significant speed boost
No, it won't.
Firstly, you're not converting strings to numbers anywhere, but more importantly the exercise asks for concatenation so working with strings is exactly what you should do. No idea why they're even passing numbers. You're doing fine already by doing the conversion only once for each number input, not every time your form a pair. And last but not least, avoiding the conversion will not be a significant improvement.
To get a significant improvement, you should use a better algorithm. #derpirscher is correct in his comment: "[It's] the nested loop checking every possible combination which hits the time limit. For instance for your example, when the outer loop points at 212 you don't need to do any checks, because regardless, whatever you concatenate to 212, it can never result in 1212".
So use
let pairCounts = 0;
numArray.forEach((e,i) => {
if (num.startsWith(e)) {
//^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
numArray.forEach((f,j) => {
if (i !== j && num === e+f) {
pairCounts++;
}
});
}
});
You might do the same with suffixes, but it becomes more complicated to rule out concatenation to oneself there.
Optimising further, you can even achieve a linear complexity solution by putting the strings in a lookup structure, then when finding a viable prefix just checking whether the missing part is an available suffix:
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
const strings = new Map();
for (const num of numArray) {
const str = String(num);
strings.set(str, 1 + (strings.get(str) ?? 0));
}
const whole = String(num);
let pairCounts = 0;
for (const [prefix, pCount] of strings) {
if (!whole.startsWith(prefix))
continue;
const suffix = whole.slice(prefix.length);
if (strings.has(suffix)) {
let sCount = strings.get(suffix);
if (suffix == prefix) sCount--; // no self-concatenation
pairCounts += pCount*sCount;
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
(the proper handling of duplicates is a bit difficile)
I like your approach of going to strings early. I can suggest a couple of simple optimizations.
You only need the numbers that are valid "first parts" and those that are valid "second parts"
You can use the javascript .startsWith and .endsWith to test for those conditions. All other strings can be thrown away.
The lengths of the strings must add up to the length of the desired answer
Suppose your target string is 8 digits long. If you have 2 valid 3-digit "first parts", then you only need to know how many valid 5-digit "second parts" you have. Suppose you have 9 of them. Those first parts can only combine with those second parts, and give you 2 * 9 = 18 valid pairs.
You don't actually need to keep the strings!
It struck me that if you know you have 2 valid 3-digit "first parts", you don't need to keep those actual strings. Knowing that they are valid 2-digit first parts is all you need to know.
So let's build an array containing:
How many valid 1-digit first parts do we have?,
How many valid 2-digit first parts do we have?,
How many valid 3-digit first parts do we have?,
etc.
And similarly an array containing the number of valid 1-digit second parts, etc.
X first parts and Y second parts can be combined in X * Y ways
Except if the parts are the same length, in which case we are reusing the same list, and so it is just X * (Y-1).
So not only do we not need to keep the strings, but we only need to do the multiplication of the appropriate elements of the arrays.
5 1-char first parts & 7 3-char second parts = 5 * 7 = 35 pairs
6 2-char first part & 4 2-char second parts = 6 * (4-1) = 18 pairs
etc
So this becomes extremely easy. One pass over the strings, tallying the "first part" and "second part" matches of each length. This can be done with an if and a ++ of the relevant array element.
Then one pass over the lengths, which will be very quick as the array of lengths will be very much shorter than the array of actual strings.
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
const sElements = numArray.map(e => "" + e);
const sTarget = "" + num;
const targetLength = sTarget.length
const startsByLen = (new Array(targetLength)).fill(0);
const endsByLen = (new Array(targetLength)).fill(0);
sElements.forEach(sElement => {
if (sTarget.startsWith(sElement)) {
startsByLen[sElement.length]++
}
if (sTarget.endsWith(sElement)) {
endsByLen[sElement.length]++
}
})
// We can now throw away the strings. We have two separate arrays:
// startsByLen[1] is the count of strings (without attempting to remove duplicates) which are the first character of the required answer
// startsByLen[2] similarly the count of strings which are the first 2 characters of the required answer
// etc.
// and endsByLen[1] is the count of strings which are the last character ...
// and endsByLen[2] is the count of strings which are the last 2 characters, etc.
let pairCounts = 0;
for (let firstElementLength = 1; firstElementLength < targetLength; firstElementLength++) {
const secondElementLength = targetLength - firstElementLength;
if (firstElementLength === secondElementLength) {
pairCounts += startsByLen[firstElementLength] * (endsByLen[secondElementLength] - 1)
} else {
pairCounts += startsByLen[firstElementLength] * endsByLen[secondElementLength]
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber([1, 212, 12, 12], 1212));
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber([4, 21, 42, 1], 421));
Depending on a setup, the integer slicing can be marginally faster
Although in the end it falls short
Also, when tested on higher N values, the previous answer exploded in jsfiddle. Possibly a memory error.
As far as I have tested with both random and hand-crafted values, my solution holds. It is based on an observation, that if X, Y concantenated == Z, then following must be true:
Z - Y == X * 10^(floor(log10(Y)) + 1)
an example of this:
1212 - 12 = 1200
12 * 10^(floor((log10(12)) + 1) = 12 * 10^(1+1) = 12 * 100 = 1200
Now in theory, this should be faster then manipulating strings. And in many other languages it most likely would be. However in Javascript as I just learned, the situation is a bit more complicated. Javascript does some weird things with casting that I haven't figured out yet. In short - when I tried storing the numbers(and their counts) in a map, the code got significantly slower making any possible gains from this logarithm shenanigans evaporate. Furthermore, storing them in a custom-crafted data structure isn't guaranteed to be faster since you have to build it etc. Also it would be quite a lot of work.
As it stands this log comparison is ~ 8 times faster in a case without(or with just a few) matches since the quadratic factor is yet to kick in. As long as the possible postfix count isn't too high, it will outperform the linear solution. Unfortunately it is still quadratic in nature with the breaking point depending on a total number of strings as well as their length.
So if you are searching for a needle in a haystack - for example you are looking for a few pairs in a huge heap of numbers, this can help. In the other case of searching for many matches, this won't help. Similarly, if the input array was sorted, you could use binary search to push the breaking point further up.
In the end, unless you manage to figure out how to store ints in a map(or some custom implementation of it) in a way that doesn't completely kill the performance, the linear solution of the previous answer will be faster. It can still be useful even with the performance hit if your computation is going to be memory heavy. Storing numbers takes less space then storing strings.
var log10 = Math.log(10)
function log10floored(num) {
return Math.floor(Math.log(num) / log10)
}
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
count = 0
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let portion = num - numArray[i]
let removedPart = Math.pow(10, log10floored(numArray[i]))
if (portion % (removedPart * 10) == 0) {
for (var j=0; j!=numArray.length; j++) {
if (j != i && portion / (removedPart * 10) == numArray[j] ) {
count += 1
}
}
}
}
return count
}
//The previous solution, that I used for timing, comparison and check purposes
function combineTheGivenNumber2(numArray, num) {
const strings = new Map();
for (const num of numArray) {
const str = String(num);
strings.set(str, 1 + (strings.get(str) ?? 0));
}
const whole = String(num);
let pairCounts = 0;
for (const [prefix, pCount] of strings) {
if (!whole.startsWith(prefix))
continue;
const suffix = whole.slice(prefix.length);
if (strings.has(suffix)) {
let sCount = strings.get(suffix);
if (suffix == prefix) sCount--; // no self-concatenation
pairCounts += pCount*sCount;
}
}
return pairCounts;
}
var myArray = []
for (let i =0; i!= 10000000; i++) {
myArray.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000000))
}
var a = new Date()
t1 = a.getTime()
console.log('Test 1: ', combineTheGivenNumber(myArray,15285656));
var b = new Date()
t2 = b.getTime()
console.log('Test 2: ', combineTheGivenNumber2(myArray,15285656));
var c = new Date()
t3 = c.getTime()
console.log('Test1 time: ', t2 - t1)
console.log('test2 time: ', t3 - t2)
Small update
As long as you are willing to take a performance hit with the setup and settle for the ~2 times performance, using a simple "hashing" table can help.(Hashing tables are nice and tidy, this is a simple modulo lookup table. The principle is similar though.)
Technically this isn't linear, practicaly it is enough for the most cases - unless you are extremely unlucky and all your numbers fall in the same bucket.
function combineTheGivenNumber(numArray, num) {
count = 0
let size = 1000000
numTable = new Array(size)
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let idx = numArray[i] % size
if (numTable[idx] == undefined) {
numTable[idx] = [numArray[i]]
} else {
numTable[idx].push(numArray[i])
}
}
for (var i=0; i!=numArray.length; i++) {
let portion = num - numArray[i]
let removedPart = Math.pow(10, log10floored(numArray[i]))
if (portion % (removedPart * 10) == 0) {
if (numTable[portion / (removedPart * 10) % size] != undefined) {
let a = numTable[portion / (removedPart * 10) % size]
for (var j=0; j!=a.length; j++) {
if (j != i && portion / (removedPart * 10) == a[j] ) {
count += 1
}
}
}
}
}
return count
}
Here's a simplified, and partially optimised approach with 2 loops:
// let's optimise 'combineTheGivenNumber', where
// a=array of numbers AND n=number to match
const ctgn = (a, n) => {
// convert our given number to a string using `toString` for clarity
// this isn't entirely necessary but means we can use strict equality later
const ns = n.toString();
// reduce is an efficient mechanism to return a value based on an array, giving us
// _=[accumulator], na=[array number] and i=[index]
return a.reduce((_, na, i) => {
// convert our 'array number' to an 'array number string' for later concatenation
const nas = na.toString();
// iterate back over our array of numbers ... we're using an optimised/reverse loop
for (let ii = a.length - 1; ii >= 0; ii--) {
// skip the current array number
if (i === ii) continue;
// string + number === string, which lets us strictly compare our 'number to match'
// if there's a match we increment the accumulator
if (a[ii] + nas === ns) ++_;
}
// we're done
return _;
}, 0);
}
My function fails (returns undefined) when the answer is a negative odd number only.
Otherwise it works.
Can anyone see why?
Instructions:
You are given an array (which will have a length of at least 3, but could be very large) containing integers. The array is either entirely comprised of odd integers or entirely comprised of even integers except for a single integer N. Write a method that takes the array as an argument and returns this "outlier" N.
My code:
function findOutlier(integers) {
let binary = integers.map((int, i) => int % 2);
let count = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < binary.length; i++) {
if (binary[i] == 0)
count++;
}
if (count > 1) {
return integers[binary.indexOf(1)]
} else {
return integers[binary.indexOf(0)]
}
}
The JavaScript % operator returns negative numbers in certain cases (when the left-hand side is negative and the right is positive). Thus your .indexOf(1) won't find the -1 in the array.
You could fix it in the .map() callback by using (i) => i & 1 to directly check the least-significant bit.
If it were me, I would interpret the warning in the assignment that the array could be "very large" as a warning that iteration should be minimized. Thus I'd be tempted to approach the problem differently. Once you've seen more than one even number or more than one odd number, you can assume that the first number that doesn't fit the pattern is the outlier. (Oh, and it occurs to me that the provision that the array always has at least 3 elements is another hint at the desired solution: you only need to check the first 3 elements to determine whether the input array is almost-all-even or almost-all-odd.)
So maybe something like:
function outlier(integers) {
function par(i) { return i & 1; }
let parity = par(integers[0]);
if (parity != par(integers[1])) {
if (parity == par(integers[2]))
// [0] and [2] are the true parity so [1] is the outlier
return integers[1];
// [1] and [2] are the true parity so [0] is the outlier
return integers[0];
}
return integers.find((i) => par(i) != parity);
}
Javascript % will return negative numbers when you use negative numbers on left hand side of %.
For example -3%2 = -1.
To handle such case you can change your code like:
function findOutlier(integers) {
let binary = integers.map((int, i) => Math.abs(int) % 2 );
let count = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < binary.length; i++) {
if (binary[i] == 0)
count++;
}
if (count > 1) {
return integers[binary.indexOf(1)]
} else {
return integers[binary.indexOf(0)]
}
}
This can work but there are better ways to solve the above problem with better time complexity. As mentioned in other answers(You only need 3 passes to decide outlier will be even or odd)
You could take an object for the storing of the first two indices of either odd (false) or even (true) values and exit early if at least two of one and one of the other type is found.
const isEven = value => value % 2 === 0;
function find(array) {
var indices = { true: [], false: [] },
i, key;
for (i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
key = isEven(array[i]);
if (indices[key].length < 2) indices[key].push(i);
if (indices.true.length > 1 && indices.false.length === 1) return indices.false[0];
if (indices.false.length > 1 && indices.true.length === 1) return indices.true[0];
}
return indices;
}
console.log(find([1, 0, 0]));
console.log(find([0, 1, 0]));
console.log(find([0, 0, 1]));
console.log(find([0, 1, 1]));
console.log(find([1, 0, 1]));
console.log(find([1, 1, 0]));
I am trying to solve this Kata from Codewars: https://www.codewars.com/kata/simple-fun-number-258-is-divisible-by-6/train/javascript
The idea is that a number (expressed as a string) with one digit replaced with *, such as "1047*66", will be inserted into a function. You must return an array in which the values are the original number with the * replaced with any digit that will produce a number divisive by 6. So given "1*0", the correct resulting array should be [120, 150, 180].
I have some code that is producing some correct results but erroring for others, and I can't figure out why. Here's the code:
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
var results = [];
for(i=0;i<10;i++) {
var string = i.toString(); // Convert i to string, ready to be inserted into s
var array = Array.from(s); // Make an array from s
var index = array.indexOf("*"); // Find where * is in the array of s
array[index] = string; // Replace * with the string of i
var number = array.join(""); // Join all indexes of the s array back together. Now we should have
// a single number expressed as a string, with * replaced with i
parseInt(number, 10); // Convert the string to an integer
if((number % 6) == 0) {
results.push(number);
} // If the integer is divisible by 6, add the integer into the results array
}
return(results);
};
This code works with the above example and generally with all smaller numbers. But it is producing errors for larger numbers. For example, when s is "29070521868839*57", the output should be []. However, I am getting ['29070521868839257', '29070521868839557', '29070521868839857']. I can't figure out where this would be going wrong. Is anyone able to help?
The problem is that these numbers are larger than the Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER - the point when JavaScript numbers break down in terms of reliability:
var num = 29070521868839257;
console.log(num > Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER);
console.log(num % 6);
console.log(num)
The last log shows that the num actually has a different value than what we gave it. This is because 29070521868839257 simply cannot be represented by a JavaScript number, hence you get the closest possible value that can be represented and that's 29070521868839256.
So, after some point in numbers, all mathematical operations become unreliable as the very numbers are imprecise.
What you can do instead is ignore treating this whole as a number - treat it as a string and only apply the principles of divisibility. This makes the task vastly easier.
For a number to be divisible by 6 it has to cover two criteria:
it has to be divisible by 2.
to verify this, you can just get the very smallest digit and check if it's divisible by 2. For example in 29070521868839257 if we take 7, and check 7 % 2, we get 1 which means that it's odd. We don't need to consider the whole number.
it has to be divisible by 3.
to verify this, you can sum each of the digits and see if that sum is divisible by 3. If we sum all the digits in 29070521868839257 we get 2 + 9 + 0 + 7 + 0 + 5 + 2 + 1 + 8 + 6 + 8 + 8 + 3 + 9 + 2 + 5 + 7 = 82 which is not divisible by 3. If in doubt, we can sum the digits again, since the rule can be applied to any number with more than two digits: 8 + 2 = 10 and 1 + 0 = 1. That is still not divisible by 3.
So, if we apply these we can get something like:
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
return isDivisibleBy2(s) && isDivisibleBy3(s);
};
function isDivisibleBy2(s) {
var lastDigit = Number(s.slice(-1));
return (lastDigit % 2) === 0;
}
function isDivisibleBy3(s) {
var digits = s.split("")
.map(Number);
var sum = digits.reduce(function(a, b) {
return a + b
});
return (sum % 3) === 0;
}
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839257"));
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839256"));
These can even be recursively defined true to the nature of these rules:
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
return isDivisibleBy2(s) && isDivisibleBy3(s);
};
function isDivisibleBy2(s) {
if (s.length === 0) {
return false;
}
if (s.length > 1) {
return isDivisibleBy2(s.slice(-1));
}
var lastDigit = Number(s);
return (lastDigit % 2) === 0;
}
function isDivisibleBy3(s) {
if (s.length === 0) {
return false;
}
if (s.length > 1) {
var digits = s.split("")
.map(Number);
var sum = digits.reduce(function(a, b) {
return a + b
});
return isDivisibleBy3(String(sum));
}
var num = Number(s);
return (num % 3) === 0;
}
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839257"));
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839256"));
This is purely to demonstrate the rules of division and how they can be applied to strings. You have to create numbers that will be divisible by 6 and to do that, you have to replace an asterisk. The easiest way to do it is like you did - generate all possibilities (e.g., 1*0 will be 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190) and then filter out whatever is not divisible by 6:
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
var allDigits = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
var allPossibleNumbers = allDigits.map(function(digit) {
return s.replace("*", digit);
});
var numbersDibisibleBySix = allPossibleNumbers.filter(function(s) {
return isDivisibleBy2(s) && isDivisibleBy3(s);
})
return numbersDibisibleBySix;
};
function isDivisibleBy2(s) {
var lastDigit = Number(s.slice(-1));
return (lastDigit % 2) === 0;
}
function isDivisibleBy3(s) {
var digits = s.split("")
.map(Number);
var sum = digits.reduce(function(a, b) {
return a + b
});
return (sum % 3) === 0;
}
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839*57"));
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839*56"));
As a last note, this can be written more concisely by removing intermediate values and using arrow functions:
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
return [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
.map(digit => s.replace("*", digit))
.filter(s => isDivisibleBy2(s) && isDivisibleBy3(s));
};
const isDivisibleBy2 = s => Number(s.slice(-1)) % 2 === 0;
const isDivisibleBy3 = s => s.split("")
.map(Number)
.reduce((a, b) => a + b) % 3 === 0
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839*57"));
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("29070521868839*56"));
Sum of all digits is divisible by three and the last digit is divisible by two.
An approach:
Get the index of the star.
Get left and right string beside of the star.
Return early if the last digit is not divisible by two.
Take the sum of all digits.
Finally create an array with missing digits:
Start loop from either zero (sum has no rest with three) or take the delta of three and the rest (because you want a number which is divisible by three).
Go while value is smaller then ten.
Increase the value either by 3 or by 6, if the index of the star is the last character.
Take left, value and right part for pushing to the result set.
Return result.
function get6(s) {
var index = s.indexOf('*'),
left = s.slice(0, index),
right = s.slice(index + 1),
result = [],
sum = 0,
i, step;
if (s[s.length - 1] % 2) return [];
for (i = 0; i < s.length; i++) if (i !== index) sum += +s[i];
i = sum % 3 && 3 - sum % 3;
step = s.length - 1 === index ? 6 : 3;
for (; i < 10; i += step) result.push(left + i + right);
return result;
}
console.log(get6("*")); // ["0", "6"]
console.log(get6("10*")); // ["102", "108"]
console.log(get6("1*0")); // ["120", "150", "180"]
console.log(get6("*1")); // []
console.log(get6("1234567890123456789012345678*0")); // ["123456789012345678901234567800","123456789012345678901234567830","123456789012345678901234567860","123456789012345678901234567890"]
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
The problem is with:
parseInt(number, 10);
You can check and see that when number is large enough, this result converted back to string is not equal to the original value of number, due to the limit on floating point precision.
This challenge can be solved without having to convert the given string to number. Instead use a property of numbers that are multiples of 6. They are multiples of 3 and even. Multiples of 3 have the property that the sum of the digits (in decimal representation) are also multiples of 3.
So start by checking that the last digit is not 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9, because in that case there is no solution.
Otherwise, sum up the digits (ignore the asterisk). Determine which value you still need to add to that sum to get to a multiple of 3. This will be 0, 1 or 2. If the asterisk is not at the far right, produce solutions with this digit, and 3, 6, 9 added to it (until you get double digits).
If the asterisk is at the far right, you can do the same, but you must make sure that you exclude odd digits in that position.
If you are desperate, here is a solution. But I hope you can make it work yourself.
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
// If last digit is odd, it can never be divisable by 6
if ("13579".includes(s[s.length-1])) return [];
let [left, right] = s.split("*");
// Calculate the sum of the digits (ignore the asterisk)
let sum = 0;
for (let ch of s) sum += +ch || 0;
// What value remains to be added to make the digit-sum a multiple of 3?
sum = (3 - sum%3) % 3;
// When asterisk in last position, then solution digit are 6 apart, otherwise 3
let mod = right.length ? 3 : 6;
if (mod === 6 && sum % 2) sum += 3; // Don't allow odd digit at last position
// Build the solutions, by injecting the found digit values
let result = [];
for (; sum < 10; sum += mod) result.push(left + sum + right);
return result;
}
// Demo
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("1234567890123456789012345678*0"));
BigInt
There is also another way to get around the floating point precision problem: use BigInt instead of floating point. However, BigInt is not supported on CodeWars, at least not in that specific Kata, where the available version of Node goes up to 8.1.3, while BigInt was introduced only in Node 10.
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
let [left, right] = s.split("*");
let result = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
let k = BigInt(left + i + right);
if (k % 6n === 0n) result.push(k.toString());
}
return result;
}
// Demo
console.log(isDivisibleBy6("1234567890123456789012345678*0"));
This would anyway feel like "cheating" (if it were accepted), as it's clearly not the purpose of the Kata.
As mentioned, the values you are using are above the maximum integer value and therefore unsafe, please see the docmentation about this over here Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER. You can use BigInt(string) to use larger values.
Thanks for all the responses. I have now created successful code!
function isDivisibleBy6(s) {
var results = [];
for(i=0;i<10;i++) {
var string = i.toString();
var array = Array.from(s);
var index = array.indexOf("*");
array[index] = string;
var div2 = 0;
var div3 = 0;
if(parseInt((array[array.length-1]),10) % 2 == 0) {
div2 = 1;
}
var numarray = array.map((x) => parseInt(x));
if(numarray.reduce(function myFunc(acc, value) {return acc+value}) % 3 == 0) {
div3 = 1;
}
if(div2 == 1 && div3 == 1) {
results.push(array.join(""));
}
}
return(results);
};
I know this could be factored down quite a bit by merging the if expressions together, but I like to see things split out so that when I look back over previous solutions my thought process is clearer.
Thanks again for all the help!
Working on some Javascript challenges on Code Signal and I'm having an issue solving this:
Ratiorg got statues of different sizes as a present from CodeMaster for his birthday, each statue having an non-negative integer size. Since he likes to make things perfect, he wants to arrange them from smallest to largest so that each statue will be bigger than the previous one exactly by 1. He may need some additional statues to be able to accomplish that. Help him figure out the minimum number of additional statues needed.
Example
For statues = [6, 2, 3, 8], the output should be
makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) = 3.
Ratiorg needs statues of sizes 4, 5 and 7.
My approach:
Sort the array smallest to largest
Create counter variable to store number of missing numbers
Iterate through array
Subtract [i + 1] element from [i] element
If it equals 1, numbers are consecutive, if not the numbers are not consecutive (increment counter variable)
Return counter variable
Here is my code:
function makeArrayConsecutive2(statues) {
// Sorts array numerically smallest to largest
statues.sort((a, b) => a - b);
let counter = 0;
// If array only contains one number return 0
if(statues.length === 1) {
return 0;
}
/* Iterate through array, subtract the current element from the next element, if it
equals 1 the numbers are consecutive, if it doesn't equal one increment the counter
variable */
for(let i = 0; i <= statues.length -1; i++) {
if(statues[i] !== statues.length -1 && statues[i + 1] - statues[i] != 1) {
counter++;
}
console.log(statues[i]);
console.log('counter : ' + counter);
}
return counter;
}
When statues contains [5, 4, 6] the output is this:
4
counter : 0
5
counter : 0
6
counter : 1
I think the problem is when array is on the last element, in this case 6, it's attempting to look at statues[i + 1] when that element doesn't exist. I added statues[i] !== statues.length -1 to my if statement to address that but it doesn't appear to be working. What's wrong with my code and why is the final element incrementing the counter variable?
I'd approach it by building the target array which goes from the min+1 to the max-1 of the input by ones, excluding members of the input.....
function missingConseq(input) {
let min = Math.min.apply(null, input)
let max = Math.max.apply(null, input)
let result = []
for (i = min+1; i < max; i++) {
if (!input.includes(i)) result.push(i)
}
return result
}
let array = [6, 2, 3, 8]
console.log(missingConseq(array))