Related
I'm trying to devise a (good) way to choose a random number from a range of possible numbers where each number in the range is given a weight. To put it simply: given the range of numbers (0,1,2) choose a number where 0 has an 80% probability of being selected, 1 has a 10% chance and 2 has a 10% chance.
It's been about 8 years since my college stats class, so you can imagine the proper formula for this escapes me at the moment.
Here's the 'cheap and dirty' method that I came up with. This solution uses ColdFusion. Yours may use whatever language you'd like. I'm a programmer, I think I can handle porting it. Ultimately my solution needs to be in Groovy - I wrote this one in ColdFusion because it's easy to quickly write/test in CF.
public function weightedRandom( Struct options ) {
var tempArr = [];
for( var o in arguments.options )
{
var weight = arguments.options[ o ] * 10;
for ( var i = 1; i<= weight; i++ )
{
arrayAppend( tempArr, o );
}
}
return tempArr[ randRange( 1, arrayLen( tempArr ) ) ];
}
// test it
opts = { 0=.8, 1=.1, 2=.1 };
for( x = 1; x<=10; x++ )
{
writeDump( weightedRandom( opts ) );
}
I'm looking for better solutions, please suggest improvements or alternatives.
Rejection sampling (such as in your solution) is the first thing that comes to mind, whereby you build a lookup table with elements populated by their weight distribution, then pick a random location in the table and return it. As an implementation choice, I would make a higher order function which takes a spec and returns a function which returns values based on the distribution in the spec, this way you avoid having to build the table for each call. The downsides are that the algorithmic performance of building the table is linear by the number of items and there could potentially be a lot of memory usage for large specs (or those with members with very small or precise weights, e.g. {0:0.99999, 1:0.00001}). The upside is that picking a value has constant time, which might be desirable if performance is critical. In JavaScript:
function weightedRand(spec) {
var i, j, table=[];
for (i in spec) {
// The constant 10 below should be computed based on the
// weights in the spec for a correct and optimal table size.
// E.g. the spec {0:0.999, 1:0.001} will break this impl.
for (j=0; j<spec[i]*10; j++) {
table.push(i);
}
}
return function() {
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)];
}
}
var rand012 = weightedRand({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1});
rand012(); // random in distribution...
Another strategy is to pick a random number in [0,1) and iterate over the weight specification summing the weights, if the random number is less than the sum then return the associated value. Of course, this assumes that the weights sum to one. This solution has no up-front costs but has average algorithmic performance linear by the number of entries in the spec. For example, in JavaScript:
function weightedRand2(spec) {
var i, sum=0, r=Math.random();
for (i in spec) {
sum += spec[i];
if (r <= sum) return i;
}
}
weightedRand2({0:0.8, 1:0.1, 2:0.1}); // random in distribution...
Generate a random number R between 0 and 1.
If R in [0, 0.1) -> 1
If R in [0.1, 0.2) -> 2
If R in [0.2, 1] -> 3
If you can't directly get a number between 0 and 1, generate a number in a range that will produce as much precision as you want. For example, if you have the weights for
(1, 83.7%) and (2, 16.3%), roll a number from 1 to 1000. 1-837 is a 1. 838-1000 is 2.
I use the following
function weightedRandom(min, max) {
return Math.round(max / (Math.random() * max + min));
}
This is my go-to "weighted" random, where I use an inverse function of "x" (where x is a random between min and max) to generate a weighted result, where the minimum is the most heavy element, and the maximum the lightest (least chances of getting the result)
So basically, using weightedRandom(1, 5) means the chances of getting a 1 are higher than a 2 which are higher than a 3, which are higher than a 4, which are higher than a 5.
Might not be useful for your use case but probably useful for people googling this same question.
After a 100 iterations try, it gave me:
==================
| Result | Times |
==================
| 1 | 55 |
| 2 | 28 |
| 3 | 8 |
| 4 | 7 |
| 5 | 2 |
==================
Here are 3 solutions in javascript since I'm not sure which language you want it in. Depending on your needs one of the first two might work, but the the third one is probably the easiest to implement with large sets of numbers.
function randomSimple(){
return [0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2][Math.floor(Math.random()*10)];
}
function randomCase(){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100)
switch(n){
case n<80:
return 0;
case n<90:
return 1;
case n<100:
return 2;
}
}
function randomLoop(weight,num){
var n=Math.floor(Math.random()*100),amt=0;
for(var i=0;i<weight.length;i++){
//amt+=weight[i]; *alternative method
//if(n<amt){
if(n<weight[i]){
return num[i];
}
}
}
weight=[80,90,100];
//weight=[80,10,10]; *alternative method
num=[0,1,2]
8 years late but here's my solution in 4 lines.
Prepare an array of probability mass function such that
pmf[array_index] = P(X=array_index):
var pmf = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
Prepare an array for the corresponding cumulative distribution function such that
cdf[array_index] = F(X=array_index):
var cdf = pmf.map((sum => value => sum += value)(0))
// [0.8, 0.9, 1]
3a) Generate a random number.
3b) Get an array of elements that are more than or equal to this number.
3c) Return its length.
var r = Math.random()
cdf.filter(el => r >= el).length
This is more or less a generic-ized version of what #trinithis wrote, in Java: I did it with ints rather than floats to avoid messy rounding errors.
static class Weighting {
int value;
int weighting;
public Weighting(int v, int w) {
this.value = v;
this.weighting = w;
}
}
public static int weightedRandom(List<Weighting> weightingOptions) {
//determine sum of all weightings
int total = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
total += w.weighting;
}
//select a random value between 0 and our total
int random = new Random().nextInt(total);
//loop thru our weightings until we arrive at the correct one
int current = 0;
for (Weighting w : weightingOptions) {
current += w.weighting;
if (random < current)
return w.value;
}
//shouldn't happen.
return -1;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Weighting> weightings = new ArrayList<Weighting>();
weightings.add(new Weighting(0, 8));
weightings.add(new Weighting(1, 1));
weightings.add(new Weighting(2, 1));
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
System.out.println(weightedRandom(weightings));
}
}
How about
int [ ] numbers = { 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 2 } ;
then you can randomly select from numbers and 0 will have an 80% chance, 1 10%, and 2 10%
This one is in Mathematica, but it's easy to copy to another language, I use it in my games and it can handle decimal weights:
weights = {0.5,1,2}; // The weights
weights = N#weights/Total#weights // Normalize weights so that the list's sum is always 1.
min = 0; // First min value should be 0
max = weights[[1]]; // First max value should be the first element of the newly created weights list. Note that in Mathematica the first element has index of 1, not 0.
random = RandomReal[]; // Generate a random float from 0 to 1;
For[i = 1, i <= Length#weights, i++,
If[random >= min && random < max,
Print["Chosen index number: " <> ToString#i]
];
min += weights[[i]];
If[i == Length#weights,
max = 1,
max += weights[[i + 1]]
]
]
(Now I'm talking with a lists first element's index equals 0) The idea behind this is that having a normalized list weights there is a chance of weights[n] to return the index n, so the distances between the min and max at step n should be weights[n]. The total distance from the minimum min (which we put it to be 0) and the maximum max is the sum of the list weights.
The good thing behind this is that you don't append to any array or nest for loops, and that increases heavily the execution time.
Here is the code in C# without needing to normalize the weights list and deleting some code:
int WeightedRandom(List<float> weights) {
float total = 0f;
foreach (float weight in weights) {
total += weight;
}
float max = weights [0],
random = Random.Range(0f, total);
for (int index = 0; index < weights.Count; index++) {
if (random < max) {
return index;
} else if (index == weights.Count - 1) {
return weights.Count-1;
}
max += weights[index+1];
}
return -1;
}
I suggest to use a continuous check of the probability and the rest of the random number.
This function sets first the return value to the last possible index and iterates until the rest of the random value is smaller than the actual probability.
The probabilities have to sum to one.
function getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities) {
var r = Math.random(),
index = probabilities.length - 1;
probabilities.some(function (probability, i) {
if (r < probability) {
index = i;
return true;
}
r -= probability;
});
return index;
}
var i,
probabilities = [0.8, 0.1, 0.1],
count = probabilities.map(function () { return 0; });
for (i = 0; i < 1e6; i++) {
count[getRandomIndexByProbability(probabilities)]++;
}
console.log(count);
.as-console-wrapper { max-height: 100% !important; top: 0; }
Thanks all, this was a helpful thread. I encapsulated it into a convenience function (Typescript). Tests below (sinon, jest). Could definitely be a bit tighter, but hopefully it's readable.
export type WeightedOptions = {
[option: string]: number;
};
// Pass in an object like { a: 10, b: 4, c: 400 } and it'll return either "a", "b", or "c", factoring in their respective
// weight. So in this example, "c" is likely to be returned 400 times out of 414
export const getRandomWeightedValue = (options: WeightedOptions) => {
const keys = Object.keys(options);
const totalSum = keys.reduce((acc, item) => acc + options[item], 0);
let runningTotal = 0;
const cumulativeValues = keys.map((key) => {
const relativeValue = options[key]/totalSum;
const cv = {
key,
value: relativeValue + runningTotal
};
runningTotal += relativeValue;
return cv;
});
const r = Math.random();
return cumulativeValues.find(({ key, value }) => r <= value)!.key;
};
Tests:
describe('getRandomWeightedValue', () => {
// Out of 1, the relative and cumulative values for these are:
// a: 0.1666 -> 0.16666
// b: 0.3333 -> 0.5
// c: 0.5 -> 1
const values = { a: 10, b: 20, c: 30 };
it('returns appropriate values for particular random value', () => {
// any random number under 0.166666 should return "a"
const stub1 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0);
const result1 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result1).toEqual('a');
stub1.restore();
const stub2 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.1666);
const result2 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result2).toEqual('a');
stub2.restore();
// any random number between 0.166666 and 0.5 should return "b"
const stub3 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.17);
const result3 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result3).toEqual('b');
stub3.restore();
const stub4 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.3333);
const result4 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result4).toEqual('b');
stub4.restore();
const stub5 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.5);
const result5 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result5).toEqual('b');
stub5.restore();
// any random number above 0.5 should return "c"
const stub6 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(0.500001);
const result6 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result6).toEqual('c');
stub6.restore();
const stub7 = sinon.stub(Math, 'random').returns(1);
const result7 = randomUtils.getRandomWeightedValue(values);
expect(result7).toEqual('c');
stub7.restore();
});
});
Shortest solution in modern JavaScript
Note: all weights need to be integers
function weightedRandom(items){
let table = Object.entries(items)
.flatMap(([item, weight]) => Array(item).fill(weight))
return table[Math.floor(Math.random() * table.length)]
}
const key = weightedRandom({
"key1": 1,
"key2": 4,
"key3": 8
}) // returns e.g. "key1"
here is the input and ratios : 0 (80%), 1(10%) , 2 (10%)
lets draw them out so its easy to visualize.
0 1 2
-------------------------------------________+++++++++
lets add up the total weight and call it TR for total ratio. so in this case 100.
lets randomly get a number from (0-TR) or (0 to 100 in this case) . 100 being your weights total. Call it RN for random number.
so now we have TR as the total weight and RN as the random number between 0 and TR.
so lets imagine we picked a random # from 0 to 100. Say 21. so thats actually 21%.
WE MUST CONVERT/MATCH THIS TO OUR INPUT NUMBERS BUT HOW ?
lets loop over each weight (80, 10, 10) and keep the sum of the weights we already visit.
the moment the sum of the weights we are looping over is greater then the random number RN (21 in this case), we stop the loop & return that element position.
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 21) //(80 > 21) so break on first pass
break;
}
//position will be 0 so we return array[0]--> 0
lets say the random number (between 0 and 100) is 83. Lets do it again:
double sum = 0;
int position = -1;
for(double weight : weight){
position ++;
sum = sum + weight;
if(sum > 83) //(90 > 83) so break
break;
}
//we did two passes in the loop so position is 1 so we return array[1]---> 1
I have a slotmachine and I used the code below to generate random numbers. In probabilitiesSlotMachine the keys are the output in the slotmachine, and the values represent the weight.
const probabilitiesSlotMachine = [{0 : 1000}, {1 : 100}, {2 : 50}, {3 : 30}, {4 : 20}, {5 : 10}, {6 : 5}, {7 : 4}, {8 : 2}, {9 : 1}]
var allSlotMachineResults = []
probabilitiesSlotMachine.forEach(function(obj, index){
for (var key in obj){
for (var loop = 0; loop < obj[key]; loop ++){
allSlotMachineResults.push(key)
}
}
});
Now to generate a random output, I use this code:
const random = allSlotMachineResults[Math.floor(Math.random() * allSlotMachineResults.length)]
Enjoy the O(1) (constant time) solution for your problem.
If the input array is small, it can be easily implemented.
const number = Math.floor(Math.random() * 99); // Generate a random number from 0 to 99
let element;
if (number >= 0 && number <= 79) {
/*
In the range of 0 to 99, every number has equal probability
of occurring. Therefore, if you gather 80 numbers (0 to 79) and
make a "sub-group" of them, then their probabilities will get added.
Hence, what you get is an 80% chance that the number will fall in this
range.
So, quite naturally, there is 80% probability that this code will run.
Now, manually choose / assign element of your array to this variable.
*/
element = 0;
}
else if (number >= 80 && number <= 89) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 1;
}
else if (number >= 90 && number <= 99) {
// 10% chance that this code runs.
element = 2;
}
I am trying to write an efficient algorithm in JavaScript to solve this task. Please see the next examples of input data and correct results:
Array: [ [-3,-4], [1,2,-3] ] Result: (-4)*(-3) = 12
Array: [ [1,-1], [2,3], [10,-100,20] ] Result: (-1)*3*(-100) = 300
Array: [ [-3,-15], [-3,-7], [-5,1,-2,-7] ] Result: (-15)*(-7)*1 = 105
It can be any number of sub-arrays and any number of elements in each sub-array. What I already found is that I probably should leave only min and max values in the each sub-array, I did it using .map(a => [Math.min(...a), Math.max(...a)]) and sort them using .sort((a, b) => a[0] - b[0]).
And now I am stuck. Probably there is a way to calculate all possible products but I am sure that it's not an effective way to solve this task.
Please help!
The problem you post can be solved with a simple algorithm. We just need to keep tracking the maximum/minimum when iterating over each sub-array. We can keep finding the next maximum/minimum by multiplying the current maximum/minimum with the max/min value in each sub-array. We pick the maximum when the iterating is over. Its time complexity is O(n) where n is total number of elements in an array (i.e. sum of number of elements in each sub-array).
Here's the complete code. find_maximum_product function keeps tracking the minimum/maximum and returns the maximum eventually, and it also keeps tracking the multipliers and return it:
/**
* arr: array of any number of sub-arrays and
* any number of elements in each sub-array.
* e.g. [[1, -1], [2, 3], [10, -100, 20]]
*/
function find_maximum_product(arr) {
let max = 1;
let min = 1;
let max_multipliers = [];
let min_multipliers = [];
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
const a = Math.max(...arr[i]);
const b = Math.min(...arr[i]);
const candidates = [max * a, max * b, min * a, min * b];
max = Math.max(...candidates);
min = Math.min(...candidates);
let new_max_multipliers;
let new_min_multipliers;
switch (max) {
case candidates[0]:
new_max_multipliers = max_multipliers.concat(a);
break;
case candidates[1]:
new_max_multipliers = max_multipliers.concat(b);
break;
case candidates[2]:
new_max_multipliers = min_multipliers.concat(a);
break;
case candidates[3]:
new_max_multipliers = min_multipliers.concat(b);
break;
}
switch (min) {
case candidates[0]:
new_min_multipliers = max_multipliers.concat(a);
break;
case candidates[1]:
new_min_multipliers = max_multipliers.concat(b);
break;
case candidates[2]:
new_min_multipliers = min_multipliers.concat(a);
break;
case candidates[3]:
new_min_multipliers = min_multipliers.concat(b);
break;
}
max_multipliers = new_max_multipliers;
min_multipliers = new_min_multipliers;
}
if (max >= min) {
return [max, max_multipliers];
}
return [min, min_multipliers];
}
const arrays = [
[
[-3, -4],
[1, 2, -3],
],
[
[1, -1],
[2, 3],
[10, -100, 20],
],
[
[-3, -15],
[-3, -7],
[-5, 1, -2, -7],
],
[
[14, 2],
[0, -16],
[-12, -16],
],
[
[-20, -4, -19, -18],
[0, -15, -10],
[-13, 4],
],
[
[-2, -15, -12, -8, -16],
[-4, -15, -7],
[-10, -5],
],
];
for (let i = 0; i < arrays.length; i++) {
const [max, max_multipliers] = find_maximum_product(arrays[i]);
console.log('Array:', JSON.stringify(arrays[i]));
console.log('Result:', `${max_multipliers.join(' * ')} = ${max}`);
console.log('');
}
UPDATE
Simpler version for just getting the maximum, not getting the multipliers:
/**
* arr: array of any number of sub-arrays and
* any number of elements in each sub-array.
* e.g. [[1, -1], [2, 3], [10, -100, 20]]
*/
function get_maximum_product(arr) {
return arr
.map((a) => [Math.min(...a), Math.max(...a)])
.reduce(
(acc, current) => {
const candidates = [
acc[0] * current[0],
acc[0] * current[1],
acc[1] * current[0],
acc[1] * current[1],
];
return [Math.min(...candidates), Math.max(...candidates)];
},
[1, 1]
)[1];
}
Here is a top-down recurrence that could be adapted to bottom-up (a loop) and utilises O(n) search space.
Until I can complete it, the reader is encouraged to add a third return value in the tuple, largest_non_positive for that special case.
// Returns [highest positive, lowest negative]
// Does not address highest non-positive
function f(A, i){
const high = Math.max(...A[i]);
const low = Math.min(...A[i]);
if (i == 0){
if (low < 0 && high >= 0)
return [high, low];
if (low <= 0 && high <= 0)
return [-Infinity, low];
if (low >= 0 && high >= 0)
return [high, Infinity];
}
const [pos, neg] = f(A, i - 1);
function maybeZero(prod){
return isNaN(prod) ? 0 : prod;
}
let hp = maybeZero(high * pos);
let hn = maybeZero(high * neg);
let ln = maybeZero(low * neg);
let lp = maybeZero(low * pos);
if (low < 0 && high >= 0)
return [Math.max(hp, ln), Math.min(hn, lp)];
if (low <= 0 && high <= 0)
return [ln, lp];
if (low >= 0 && high >= 0)
return [hp, hn];
}
var As = [
[[-3,-4], [1,2,-3]],
[[1,-1], [2,3], [10,-100,20]],
[[-3,-15], [-3,-7], [-5,1,-2,-7]],
[[-11,-6], [-20,-20], [18,-4], [-20,1]],
[[-1000,1], [-1,1], [-1,1], [-1,1]],
[[14,2], [0,-16], [-12,-16]],
[[-20, -4, -19, -18], [0, -15, -10],[-13, 4]]
];
for (let A of As){
console.log(JSON.stringify(A));
console.log(f(A, A.length - 1)[0]);
console.log('');
}
Sort values in arrays by their absolute value in descending order
Check the product of first array elements if its positive its the answer
Otherwise lets call product p and we know p < 0, so if we change some positive element to some negative element or vice verse we will improve answer
we can simply check all possible elements to change, for each array a element x we can check if p / a[0] * x is better than current result if it is we update our answer
*Special case: all elements in arrays are negative and we have odd number of arrays, then we simply sort in increasing order
Complexity: O(n log n) where n is total amount of elements across all arrays
Take the product of the highest number of all the arrays that have at least one positive number.
If there's an odd number of remaining arrays (with only negatives), find the one with the highest (closest to zero) negative number, and set its absolute aside.
Take the arrays that remain after step 2, take the product of their lowest number (furthest from zero), and multiply it by the products from step 1 and (if any) step 2.
(also, avoid 0 if it would be the chosen number)
The first thing to notice is that there are only two specific cases where it's not possible to get a positive product. So I think an algorithm should first check if those specific cases are happening, then call a different subalgorithm for each of the three possible situations:
it is possible to get a positive product, so we want to find the highest positive product;
one of the arrays is full of zeroes, so all products are zero;
it is impossible to get a positive product, because no array has both positive and negative numbers, and there is an odd number of arrays with only negative numbers, so we want to find the closest to zero negative product.
The second and third cases lead to trivial algorithms.
Let's consider the first case.
For every array, the only numbers that can be useful in the highest product are the highest positive number, and the lowest negative number. If an array only has positive numbers or only has negative numbers, then there is only one useful number in that array, which can be chosen immediately.
For all the remaining arrays, you have to choose whether to use the positive or the negative number. Ideally, you want to use the one with the highest absolute value; but if you do that for every array, then the result might be negative.
This leads to a linear algorithm:
For all of the remaining arrays, initially select the number with the highest absolute value
If the resulting product is positive, you're done.
If the resulting product is negative, then a compromise has to be done in one of the arrays. For every array, compute the "cost" of this compromise (equal to the difference between the absolute values of the two interesting numbers in that array, multiplied by the product of all the other selected numbers).
Finally, choose the array whose cost is the lowest, and change the chosen number in that array.
Here is an example execution of the algorithm on the list of arrays [[18,19,20,-23], [12,-10,9,8],[-10,-3],[5,3],[-10,-5]].
Here we notice that it is possible to find a positive solution, because at least one of the arrays contains both negative and positive numbers.
For the last three arrays we have no choice between positive and negative: so we can already choose -10, 5 and -10 as the three numbers for these three arrays. For the first array, we'll have to choose between 20 and -23; and for the second array we'll have to choose between 12 and -10.
So the final product will be: (20 or -23) * (12 and -10) * (-10) * 5 * (-10).
Ideally, we would prefer 23 to 20, and 12 to 10. That would result in:
(-23) * 12 * (-10) * 5 * (-10)
Unfortunately, this is negative. So the question is: do we replace -23 with 20, or 12 with -10?
The cost of replacing -23 with 20 would be (23-20) * 11 * (10*5*10) = 33 * (10*5*10).
The cost of replacing 12 with -10 would be (12-10) * 21 * (10*5*10) = 42 * (10*5*10).
Finally, we choose to replace -23 with 20, because that is the less costly compromise.
The final product is 20 * 12 * (-10) * 5 * (-10).
Given any number between 0 and 1, such as 0.84729347293923, is there a simple way to make it into 84729347293923 without string or regex manipulation? I can think of using a loop, which probably is no worse than using a string because it is O(n) with n being the number of digits. But is there a better way?
function getRandom() {
let r = Math.random();
while (Math.floor(r) !== r) r *= 10;
return r;
}
for (let i = 0; i < 10; i++)
console.log(getRandom());
Integers mod 1 = 0, non integers mod 1 != 0.
while ((r*=10) % 1);
Ok, just want to refactor my code (i realized that was bad so this is what i discovered to correctly get the value as you requested).
NOTE: As the question says that "given any number between 0 and 1", this solution only works for values between 0 and 1:
window.onload = ()=>{
function getLen(num){
let currentNumb = num;
let integratedArray = [];
let realLen = 0;
/*While the number is not an integer, we will multiply the copy of the original
*value by ten, and when the loop detects that the number is already an integer
*the while simply breaks, in this process we are storing each transformations
*of the number in an array called integratedArray*/
while(!(Number.isInteger(currentNumb))){
currentNumb *= 10;
integratedArray.push(currentNumb);
}
/*We iterate over the array and compare each value of the array with an operation
*in which the resultant value should be exactly the same as the actual item of the
*array, in the case that both are equal we assign the var realLen to i, and
*in case that the values were not the same, we simply breaks the loop, if the
*values are not the same, this indicates that we found the "trash numbers", so
*we simply skip them.*/
for(let i = 0; i < integratedArray.length; i++){
if(Math.floor(integratedArray[i]) === Math.floor(num * Math.pow(10, i + 1))){
realLen = i;
}else{
break;
}
}
return realLen;
}
//Get the float value of a number between 0 and 1 as an integer.
function getShiftedNumber(num){
//First we need the length to get the float part of the number as an integer
const len = getLen(num);
/*Once we have the length of the number we simply multiply the number by
*(10) ^ numberLength, this eliminates the comma (,), or point (.), and
*automatically transforms the number to an integer in this case a large integer*/
return num * (Math.pow(10, len));
}
console.log(getShiftedNumber(0.84729347293923));
}
So the explanation is the next:
Because we want to convert this number without using any string, regex or any another thing, first we need to get the length of the number, this is a bit hard to do without using string conversions... so i did the function getLen for this purpose.
In the function getLen, we have 3 variables:
currentNumb: This var is a copy of the original value (the original number), this value help us to found the length of the number and we can do some transforms to this value whitout changing the original reference of the number.
We need to multiply this value any times is needed to transform the number to an integer and then multiplyng this value by ten to ten.
with the help of a while (this method makes the number a false integer).
NOTE: I saw "False integer" because when i was making the tests i realized that in the number is being adding more digits than normal... (Very very strange), so this stupid but important thing makes neccesary the filter of these "trash numbers", so later we proccess them.
integratedArray: This array stores the values of the result of the first while operations, so the last number stored in this array is an integer, but this number is one of the "fake integers", so with this array we need to iterate later to compare what of those stored values are different to the original value multiplied by (10 * i + 1), so here is the hint:
In this case the first 12 values of this array are exactly the same with the operation of Math.floor(num * Math.pow(10, i + 1))), but in the 13th value of the array these values are not the same so... yes!, there are those "trash numbers" that we were searching for.
realLen: This is the variable where we will store the real length of the number converting the float part of this number in an integer.
Some binary search approach:
Its useless if avarage length < 8;
It contains floating point issues.
But hey it is O(log n) with tons of wasted side computations - i guess if one counts them its event worse than just plain multiplication.
I prefer #chiliNUT answer. One line stamp.
function floatToIntBinarySearch(number){
const max_safe_int_length = 16;
const powers = [
1,
10,
100,
1000,
10000,
100000,
1000000,
10000000,
100000000,
1000000000,
10000000000,
100000000000,
1000000000000,
10000000000000,
100000000000000,
1000000000000000,
10000000000000000
]
let currentLength = 16
let step = 16
let _number = number * powers[currentLength]
while(_number % 1 != 0 || (_number % 10 | 0) == 0){
step /= 2
if( (_number % 10 | 0) == 0 && !(_number % 1 != 0)){
currentLength = currentLength - step;
} else {
currentLength = step + currentLength;
}
if(currentLength < 1 || currentLength > max_safe_int_length * 2) throw Error("length is weird: " + currentLength)
_number = number * powers[currentLength]
console.log(currentLength, _number)
if(Number.isNaN(_number)) throw Error("isNaN: " + ((number + "").length - 2) + " maybe greater than 16?")
}
return number * powers[currentLength]
}
let randomPower = 10 ** (Math.random() * 10 | 0)
let test = (Math.random() * randomPower | 0) / randomPower
console.log(test)
console.log(floatToIntBinarySearch(test))
I need to create a method that finds the largest sum of consecutive entries in an array given a group size. It should take an array and the interval size as inputs and should return both the largest sum and the index of the first entry in the group.
For example, in the following Array [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2] given a group size of 2 the result would be a maximum sum of 3 and a position of 6.
How would one Complete this?
Thanks!
Since you didn't post any code my answer will be general.
The easiest way will be to loop through the array and finding sum of current digit with n consecutive digits, up until the currentDigitIndex<=array.length-n, in this loop you should compare currentDigitSum with the currentMaxSum and store which ever is larger in the currentMaxSum (also store the maxSumPositionIndex).
While solving this problem you should account for a things like: what if array length is equal to 1 or 0, what if an array has negative integers, what if group size will be larger than array length, what if your array has 2 or 3 equally large sums...
Here is an answer I came up with. It works in MOST scenerios, not all, therefore the answer can be improved on.
Array.prototype.maxGroupOf = function (size) {
max = -Infinity;
indexSpot = 0;
len = this.length - size + 1;
add = function (x, y) {
return x + y;
};
this.forEach(function (x, y) {
if (y > len) return;
b = this.slice(y, y + size).reduce(add, 0);
if (b > max) {
max = b;
indexSpot = y;
}
}, this);
return {
sum: max,
position: indexSpot
};
};
console.log([1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2].maxGroupOf(2));
---Output---
Object {sum: 3, position: 6}
I have 24 prices, one price for each hour of the day, and I need to find the average for them (the daily average).
But, I can't get the prices to average correctly, and I can't find an accurate algorithm on how to average prices/round decimals in Javascript. Every method (parseFloat, toFixed()) seems to produce inaccurate results occasionally.
Does anyone know the ACCURATE way to average prices/round decimals in Javascript? And I'm not just talking about something that works only with the array of prices below, but something that works and is bullet-proof with any array of prices (decimals)...
Here is what I have right now. It returns 178.00 in Chrome. But it should return 178.01.
// Rounding Function
function roundDecimal(value) {
return Number(Math.round(value+'e2')+'e-2');
};
var priceSum = 0;
var prices = [23.4,24.4,24.68,25,25.1,30.81,851.19,646.47,659.24,707.7,759.23,124.69,37.93,53.25,23.4,23.8,23.4,23.4,50.57,37.78,25,24.55,23.4,23.73]
for(var x = 0; x < prices.length; x ++) {
priceSum = priceSum + prices[x];
console.log(priceSum);
};
var priceAverage = roundDecimal( priceSum / prices.length );
console.log("Daily Average is: "+priceAverage);
Please refer to this question https://stackoverflow.com/a/588014/536984
JavaScript floating point math is not meant to do finance calculations, also is better that you represent your prices in cents, that way you don't have decimals
var array = [2340, 2440, 2468, 2500, 2510, 3081, 85119, 64647, 65924, 70770, 75923, 12469, 3793, 5325, 2340, 2380, 2340, 2340, 5057, 3778, 2500, 2455, 2340, 2373];
Math.round(array.reduce(function (a, b) { return a + b }) / array.length)
As said elsewhere, money is easiest with integers, but to get accuracy to a half cent, divide by the 100 to get cents again after dividing the total by the number of prices.
var prices= [23.4, 24.4, 24.68, 25, 25.1, 30.81, 851.19, 646.47, 659.24, 707.7, 759.23, 124.69, 37.93, 53.25, 23.4, 23.8, 23.4, 23.4, 50.57, 37.78, 25, 24.55, 23.4, 23.73];
var total=prices.map(function(n){
return n*100;
}).reduce(function(a, b){
return a+(b || 0);
});
Math.round((total/prices.length))/100;
/* returned value: (Number)
178.01
*/