Related
I want the user to enter a number and print back the amount of digits of that number.
I know that I can use length, but my homework asking for while loop.
This is what I have so far:
var num;
var count = 0;
num = prompt('Enter number: ');
function counter(x, y) {
while (x > 0) {
y++;
x /= 10;
}
return y;
}
var result = counter(num, count);
console.log(result);
When I give the number 3456 (example), I get back the number 328. I want it to print back the number 4.
This line:
x /= 10;
Should be changed to:
x = Math.floor(x / 10);
The logic assumes integer division: 1234 is supposed to become 123, 12, 1 and 0. JavaScript does not have built in integer division so you need to use Math.floor to emulate it. Complete example with some fixes:
function countDigits(num) {
var count = 0;
while (num > 0) {
num = Math.floor(num / 10);
count++;
}
return count;
}
var num;
do {
num = Number(prompt("Enter number:"));
} while (Number.isNaN(num));
num = Math.abs(num); // just in case you want to handle -ve numbers
var result = countDigits(num);
console.log(result);
The problem is that the division operation will eventually end up converting x to a float and you'll have something like:
x / 10 === 0.1;
x / 10 === 0.01;
x / 10 === 0.001;
....
if you always parse (round) the result of the division to an integer, you'll get the expected result.
var num;
var count = 0;
num = prompt('Enter number: ');
function counter(x, y) {
while (x > 0) {
y++;
x = parseInt(x / 10);
}
return y;
}
var result = counter(num, count);
console.log(result);
You could check againt a number by taking the power of a decimal count.
function counter(value) {
var decimals = 0;
do {
decimals++;
} while (value >= 10 ** decimals)
return decimals;
}
console.log(counter(0));
console.log(counter(1));
console.log(counter(7));
console.log(counter(42));
console.log(counter(999));
console.log(counter(1000));
console.log(counter(1001));
First of all you should convert the input into a number, preferably using the Number function (using unary + has the same effect).
Secondly a division like 5 / 10 will return 0.5 which is bigger than 0. You should instead check if the number is bigger than or equal to 1.
function counter(num) {
num = Math.abs(num) / 10;
var count = 1;
while (num >= 1) {
count++;
num /= 10;
}
return count;
}
console.log(counter(+prompt('Enter number: ')));
You could also use a do while loop and avoid having an extra division outside the loop.
As others have pointed out, y doesn't need to be a parameter, it can be a local variable. But that's not your problem; let's add some extra logging to your loop:
function counter(x) {
let y=0;
while (x > 0) {
console.log("x=" + x + ", y=" + y);
y++;
x /= 10;
}
return y;
}
counter(3456);
The output looks like this:
x=3456, y=0
x=345.6, y=1
x=34.56, y=2
x=3.4560000000000004, y=3
x=0.3456, y=4
x=0.03456, y=5
...
You wanted the loop to stop at 0.3456, but that's still more than 0. (This mistake actually gives you a chance to learn something extra: can you explain why the loop ever finishes at all?)
Hopefully this will give you enough of a hint to complete the homework assignment - remember that debugging is an extremely important part of programming.
Please don't use cycles to measure length of an integer...
Use math instead! Logarithm will do much better job for you.
function numberLength(number) {
return Math.floor(Math.log10(Math.abs(number))) + 1
}
console.log(numberLength(YOUR_NUMBER));
This code returns NaN when the input is 0. I think it depends on your philosophy what length the 0 should have, so I am leaving that case unhandled.
I'm trying to map one decimal number range to another. In the example below it's the range 0.0 -> 2.0 mapped to 0.0 -> 0.8. I can't seem to get the output range to ever finish at 0.8 - it stops short at 0.722. The issue I think is how the scale variable is calculated but I'm unsure as to how to fix it. Can anyone see where I am going wrong?
function myscale (num, in_min, in_max, out_min, out_max, factor)
{
// number map
var scale = Math.max(0.0, num - in_min) / (in_max - in_min);
// calculate easing curve
var r = out_min + (Math.pow(scale, factor) * (out_max - out_min));
// 64-bit floating point representation fix
r = parseFloat(r.toFixed(10));
// return mapped scale number
return r;
}
var text = "";
var i;
for (i = 0.0; i <= 2.0; i = i + 0.1)
{
text += myscale(i, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.8, 2) + "<br />";
}
document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = text;
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<b>Numbers mapped from 0 to 0.8</b>
<p id="demo"></p>
</body>
</html>
You could take a different approach and iterate until then value is smaller than the wanted values. Finally take the greates value and call the function with this value outside of the for loop with a value withour floating points errors of adding numbers.
function myscale (num, in_min, in_max, out_min, out_max, factor) {
// number map
var scale = Math.max(0.0, num - in_min) / (in_max - in_min);
// calculate easing curve
var r = out_min + (Math.pow(scale, factor) * (out_max - out_min));
// 64-bit floating point representation fix
r = parseFloat(r.toFixed(10));
// return mapped scale number
return r;
}
var text = "";
var i;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i += 0.1) {
text += myscale(i, 0, 2, 0, 0.8, 2) + "<br />";
}
text += myscale(2, 0, 2, 0, 0.8, 2) + "<br />";
document.getElementById("demo").innerHTML = text;
<b>Numbers mapped from 0 to 0.8</b>
<p id="demo"></p>
Non-integer values should not be used for loop control unless you have properly crafted the loop for floating-point arithmetic. Generally, it is easier to implement loop control with integer arithmetic. (When non-integer values are used in loop control, floating-point rounding errors may cause the iterator value to be slightly above or below the end value in the iteration when ideally it would equal the end value. This makes controlling exactly which iteration the loop ends on difficult.)
For the case in the question, where we want to iterate by one-tenth, a simple solution is to scale by 10, so 0, 2.0, and 0.1 become 0, 20, and 1:
for (var ProxyI = 0; ProxyI <= 20; ProxyI = ProxyI += 1)
{
var RealI = ProxyI / 10.0;
text += myscale(RealI, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.8, 2) + "<br />";
}
In general, if we want to iterate from Start to End, inclusive, by Increment, where Increment ideally evenly divides the distance from Start to End but floating-point arithmetic interferes, then we can use:
var NumberOfIntervals = Math.round((End - Start) / Interval);
for (var ProxyI = 0; ProxyI <= NumberOfIntervals; ProxyI = ProxyI + 1)
{
var RealI = Start + I / NumberOfIntervals * (End - Start);
…
}
The design here is that NumberOfIntervals is set to be the integer number of intervals we expect to iterate through. Then integer arithmetic is used with ProxyI, incrementing by one to count the intervals. This integer arithmetic has no rounding errors, so ProxyI correctly counts the intervals. Then, inside the loop, the counter ProxyI is scaled and translated to the corresponding point in the interval from Start to End. This arithmetic will have some rounding errors, so RealI will often be not exactly the ideal number, but it will be close. The rounding errors will only affect the value of RealI; they will not affect the loop counter, ProxyI. So the loop counts correctly. (Getting the exact number is generally impossible, since it would not be representable in the floating-point format.)
This design solves the problem of rounding errors in the iterator causing it to be slightly above or below the end value, but it provides the additional benefit of avoiding compounded rounding errors over many additions. The rounding errors are limited to the few operations in Start + I / NumberOfIntervals * (End - Start).
(Note: I almost never write in JavaScript, so I cannot assure the above code is proper JavaScript. Also note that the final value of RealI as calculated above might not be exactly End, because End - Start + Start in floating-point arithmetic does not necessarily produce End.)
Is it possible to get a random number between 1-100 and keep the results mainly within the 40-60 range? I mean, it will go out of that range rarely, but I want it to be mainly within that range... Is it possible with JavaScript/jQuery?
Right now I'm just using the basic Math.random() * 100 + 1.
The simplest way would be to generate two random numbers from 0-50 and add them together.
This gives a distribution biased towards 50, in the same way rolling two dice biases towards 7.
In fact, by using a larger number of "dice" (as #Falco suggests), you can make a closer approximation to a bell-curve:
function weightedRandom(max, numDice) {
let num = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < numDice; i++) {
num += Math.random() * (max/numDice);
}
return num;
}
JSFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/797qhcza/1/
You have some good answers here that give specific solutions; let me describe for you the general solution. The problem is:
I have a source of more-or-less uniformly distributed random numbers between 0 and 1.
I wish to produce a sequence of random numbers that follow a different distribution.
The general solution to this problem is to work out the quantile function of your desired distribution, and then apply the quantile function to the output of your uniform source.
The quantile function is the inverse of the integral of your desired distribution function. The distribution function is the function where the area under a portion of the curve is equal to the probability that the randomly-chosen item will be in that portion.
I give an example of how to do so here:
http://ericlippert.com/2012/02/21/generating-random-non-uniform-data/
The code in there is in C#, but the principles apply to any language; it should be straightforward to adapt the solution to JavaScript.
Taking arrays of numbers, etc. isn't efficient. You should take a mapping which takes a random number between 0 to 100 and maps to the distribution you need. So in your case, you could take f(x)=-(1/25)x2+4x to get a distribution with the most values in the middle of your range.
I might do something like setup a "chance" for the number to be allowed to go "out of bounds". In this example, a 20% chance the number will be 1-100, otherwise, 40-60:
$(function () {
$('button').click(function () {
var outOfBoundsChance = .2;
var num = 0;
if (Math.random() <= outOfBoundsChance) {
num = getRandomInt(1, 100);
} else {
num = getRandomInt(40, 60);
}
$('#out').text(num);
});
function getRandomInt(min, max) {
return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min + 1)) + min;
}
});
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<button>Generate</button>
<div id="out"></div>
fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/kbv39s9w/
I needed to solve this problem a few years ago and my solution was easier than any of the other answers.
I generated 3 randoms between the bounds and averaged them. This pulls the result towards the centre but leaves it completely possible to reach the extremities.
It looks stupid but you can use rand twice:
var choice = Math.random() * 3;
var result;
if (choice < 2){
result = Math.random() * 20 + 40; //you have 2/3 chance to go there
}
else {
result = Math.random() * 100 + 1;
}
Sure it is possible. Make a random 1-100. If the number is <30 then generate number in range 1-100 if not generate in range 40-60.
There is a lot of different ways to generate such random numbers. One way to do it is to compute the sum of multiple uniformly random numbers. How many random numbers you sum and what their range is will determine how the final distribution will look.
The more numbers you sum up, the more it will be biased towards the center. Using the sum of 1 random number was already proposed in your question, but as you notice is not biased towards the center of the range. Other answers have propose using the sum of 2 random numbers or the sum of 3 random numbers.
You can get even more bias towards the center of the range by taking the sum of more random numbers. At the extreme you could take the sum of 99 random numbers which each were either 0 or 1. That would be a binomial distribution. (Binomial distributions can in some sense be seen as the discrete version of normal distributions). This can still in theory cover the full range, but it has so much bias towards the center that you should never expect to see it reach the endpoints.
This approach means you can tweak just how much bias you want.
What about using something like this:
var loops = 10;
var tries = 10;
var div = $("#results").html(random());
function random() {
var values = "";
for(var i=0; i < loops; i++) {
var numTries = tries;
do {
var num = Math.floor((Math.random() * 100) + 1);
numTries--;
}
while((num < 40 || num >60) && numTries > 1)
values += num + "<br/>";
}
return values;
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="results"></div>
The way I've coded it allows you to set a couple of variables:
loops = number of results
tries = number of times the function will try to get a number between 40-60 before it stops running through the while loop
Added bonus: It uses do while!!! Awesomeness at its best
You can write a function that maps random values between [0, 1) to [1, 100] according to weight. Consider this example:
Here, the value 0.95 maps to value between [61, 100].
In fact we have .05 / .1 = 0.5, which, when mapped to [61, 100], yields 81.
Here is the function:
/*
* Function that returns a function that maps random number to value according to map of probability
*/
function createDistributionFunction(data) {
// cache data + some pre-calculations
var cache = [];
var i;
for (i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
cache[i] = {};
cache[i].valueMin = data[i].values[0];
cache[i].valueMax = data[i].values[1];
cache[i].rangeMin = i === 0 ? 0 : cache[i - 1].rangeMax;
cache[i].rangeMax = cache[i].rangeMin + data[i].weight;
}
return function(random) {
var value;
for (i = 0; i < cache.length; i++) {
// this maps random number to the bracket and the value inside that bracket
if (cache[i].rangeMin <= random && random < cache[i].rangeMax) {
value = (random - cache[i].rangeMin) / (cache[i].rangeMax - cache[i].rangeMin);
value *= cache[i].valueMax - cache[i].valueMin + 1;
value += cache[i].valueMin;
return Math.floor(value);
}
}
};
}
/*
* Example usage
*/
var distributionFunction = createDistributionFunction([
{ weight: 0.1, values: [1, 40] },
{ weight: 0.8, values: [41, 60] },
{ weight: 0.1, values: [61, 100] }
]);
/*
* Test the example and draw results using Google charts API
*/
function testAndDrawResult() {
var counts = [];
var i;
var value;
// run the function in a loop and count the number of occurrences of each value
for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
value = distributionFunction(Math.random());
counts[value] = (counts[value] || 0) + 1;
}
// convert results to datatable and display
var data = new google.visualization.DataTable();
data.addColumn("number", "Value");
data.addColumn("number", "Count");
for (value = 0; value < counts.length; value++) {
if (counts[value] !== undefined) {
data.addRow([value, counts[value]]);
}
}
var chart = new google.visualization.ColumnChart(document.getElementById("chart"));
chart.draw(data);
}
google.load("visualization", "1", { packages: ["corechart"] });
google.setOnLoadCallback(testAndDrawResult);
<script src="https://www.google.com/jsapi"></script>
<div id="chart"></div>
Here's a weighted solution at 3/4 40-60 and 1/4 outside that range.
function weighted() {
var w = 4;
// number 1 to w
var r = Math.floor(Math.random() * w) + 1;
if (r === 1) { // 1/w goes to outside 40-60
var n = Math.floor(Math.random() * 80) + 1;
if (n >= 40 && n <= 60) n += 40;
return n
}
// w-1/w goes to 40-60 range.
return Math.floor(Math.random() * 21) + 40;
}
function test() {
var counts = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 2000; i++) {
var n = weighted();
if (!counts[n]) counts[n] = 0;
counts[n] ++;
}
var output = document.getElementById('output');
var o = "";
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
o += i + " - " + (counts[i] | 0) + "\n";
}
output.innerHTML = o;
}
test();
<pre id="output"></pre>
Ok, so I decided to add another answer because I felt like my last answer, as well as most answers here, use some sort of half-statistical way of obtaining a bell-curve type result return. The code I provide below works the same way as when you roll a dice. Therefore, it is hardest to get 1 or 99, but easiest to get 50.
var loops = 10; //Number of numbers generated
var min = 1,
max = 50;
var div = $("#results").html(random());
function random() {
var values = "";
for (var i = 0; i < loops; i++) {
var one = generate();
var two = generate();
var ans = one + two - 1;
var num = values += ans + "<br/>";
}
return values;
}
function generate() {
return Math.floor((Math.random() * (max - min + 1)) + min);
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="results"></div>
I'd recommend using the beta distribution to generate a number between 0-1, then scale it up. It's quite flexible and can create many different shapes of distributions.
Here's a quick and dirty sampler:
rbeta = function(alpha, beta) {
var a = 0
for(var i = 0; i < alpha; i++)
a -= Math.log(Math.random())
var b = 0
for(var i = 0; i < beta; i++)
b -= Math.log(Math.random())
return Math.ceil(100 * a / (a+b))
}
var randNum;
// generate random number from 1-5
var freq = Math.floor(Math.random() * (6 - 1) + 1);
// focus on 40-60 if the number is odd (1,3, or 5)
// this should happen %60 of the time
if (freq % 2){
randNum = Math.floor(Math.random() * (60 - 40) + 40);
}
else {
randNum = Math.floor(Math.random() * (100 - 1) + 1);
}
The best solution targeting this very problem is the one proposed by BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft but I think a somewhat faster and more general solution is also worth mentioning.
When I have to generate random numbers (strings, coordinate pairs, etc.) satisfying the two requirements of
The result set is quite small. (not larger than 16K numbers)
The result set is discreet. (like integer numbers only)
I usually start by creating an array of numbers (strings, coordinate pairs, etc.) fulfilling the requirement (In your case: an array of numbers containing the more probable ones multiple times.), then choose a random item of that array. This way, you only have to call the expensive random function once per item.
Distribution
5% for [ 0,39]
90% for [40,59]
5% for [60,99]
Solution
var f = Math.random();
if (f < 0.05) return random(0,39);
else if (f < 0.95) return random(40,59);
else return random(60,99);
Generic Solution
random_choose([series(0,39),series(40,59),series(60,99)],[0.05,0.90,0.05]);
function random_choose (collections,probabilities)
{
var acc = 0.00;
var r1 = Math.random();
var r2 = Math.random();
for (var i = 0; i < probabilities.length; i++)
{
acc += probabilities[i];
if (r1 < acc)
return collections[i][Math.floor(r2*collections[i].length)];
}
return (-1);
}
function series(min,max)
{
var i = min; var s = [];
while (s[s.length-1] < max) s[s.length]=i++;
return s;
}
You can use a helper random number to whether generate random numbers in 40-60 or 1-100:
// 90% of random numbers should be between 40 to 60.
var weight_percentage = 90;
var focuse_on_center = ( (Math.random() * 100) < weight_percentage );
if(focuse_on_center)
{
// generate a random number within the 40-60 range.
alert (40 + Math.random() * 20 + 1);
}
else
{
// generate a random number within the 1-100 range.
alert (Math.random() * 100 + 1);
}
If you can use the gaussian function, use it. This function returns normal number with average 0 and sigma 1.
95% of this number are within average +/- 2*sigma. Your average = 50, and sigma = 5 so
randomNumber = 50 + 5*gaussian()
The best way to do that is generating a random number that is distributed equally in a certain set of numbers, and then apply a projection function to the set between 0 and a 100 where the projection is more likely to hit the numbers you want.
Typically the mathematical way of achieving this is plotting a probability function of the numbers you want. We could use the bell curve, but let's for the sake of easier calculation just work with a flipped parabola.
Let's make a parabola such that its roots are at 0 and 100 without skewing it. We get the following equation:
f(x) = -(x-0)(x-100) = -x * (x-100) = -x^2 + 100x
Now, all the area under the curve between 0 and 100 is representative of our first set where we want the numbers generated. There, the generation is completely random. So, all we need to do is find the bounds of our first set.
The lower bound is, of course, 0. The upper bound is the integral of our function at 100, which is
F(x) = -x^3/3 + 50x^2
F(100) = 500,000/3 = 166,666.66666 (let's just use 166,666, because rounding up would make the target out of bounds)
So we know that we need to generate a number somewhere between 0 and 166,666. Then, we simply need to take that number and project it to our second set, which is between 0 and 100.
We know that the random number we generated is some integral of our parabola with an input x between 0 and 100. That means that we simply have to assume that the random number is the result of F(x), and solve for x.
In this case, F(x) is a cubic equation, and in the form F(x) = ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d = 0, the following statements are true:
a = -1/3
b = 50
c = 0
d = -1 * (your random number)
Solving this for x yields you the actual random number your are looking for, which is guaranteed to be in the [0, 100] range and a much higher likelihood to be close to the center than the edges.
This answer is really good. But I would like to post implementation instructions (I'm not into JavaScript, so I hope you will understand) for different situation.
Assume you have ranges and weights for every range:
ranges - [1, 20], [21, 40], [41, 60], [61, 100]
weights - {1, 2, 100, 5}
Initial Static Information, could be cached:
Sum of all weights (108 in sample)
Range selection boundaries. It basically this formula: Boundary[n] = Boundary[n - 1] + weigh[n - 1] and Boundary[0] = 0. Sample has Boundary = {0, 1, 3, 103, 108}
Number generation:
Generate random number N from range [0, Sum of all weights).
for (i = 0; i < size(Boundary) && N > Boundary[i + 1]; ++i)
Take ith range and generate random number in that range.
Additional note for performance optimizations. Ranges don't have to be ordered neither ascending nor descending order, so for faster range look-up range that has highest weight should go first and one with lowest weight should go last.
I am working on a JavaScript function that takes two values: precision of a decimal value & scale of a decimal value.
This function should calculate the maximum value that can be stored in a decimal of that size.
For example: a decimal with a precision of 5 and a scale of 3 would have a maximum value of 99.999.
What I have does the job, but it's not elegant. Can anyone think of something more clever?
Also, please forgive the use of this weird version of Hungarian notation.
function maxDecimalValue(pintPrecision, pintScale) {
/* the maximum integers for a decimal is equal to the precision - the scale.
The maximum number of decimal places is equal to the scale.
For example, a decimal(5,3) would have a max value of 99.999
*/
// There's got to be a more elegant way to do this...
var intMaxInts = (pintPrecision- pintScale);
var intMaxDecs = pintScale;
var intCount;
var strMaxValue = "";
// build the max number. Start with the integers.
if (intMaxInts == 0) strMaxValue = "0";
for (intCount = 1; intCount <= intMaxInts; intCount++) {
strMaxValue += "9";
}
// add the values in the decimal place
if (intMaxDecs > 0) {
strMaxValue += ".";
for (intCount = 1; intCount <= intMaxDecs; intCount++) {
strMaxValue += "9";
}
}
return parseFloat(strMaxValue);
}
Haven't tested it:
function maxDecimalValue(precision, scale) {
return Math.pow(10,precision-scale) - Math.pow(10,-scale);
}
precision must be positive
maxDecimalValue(5,3) = 10^(5-3) - 10^-3 = 100 - 1/1000 = 99.999
maxDecimalValue(1,0) = 10^1 - 10^0 = 10 - 1 = 9
maxDecimalValue(1,-1) = 10^(1+1) - 10^1 = 100 - 10 = 90
maxDecimalValue(2,-3) = 10^(2+3) - 10^3 = 100000 - 1000 = 99000
What about
function maxDecimalValue(pintPrecision, pintScale)
{
var result = "";
for(var i = 0; i < pintPrecision; ++i)
{
if(i == (pintPrecision - pintScale)
{
result += ".";
}
result += "9";
}
return parseFloat(result);
}
Check it out here
I would do something along the lines of ((10 * pintPrecision) - 1) + "." + ((10 * pintScale) - 1)
Although pow(10,precision-scale) - pow(10,-scale) is the right formula, you will need to calculate it with decimal type instead of float.
For example, if precision=4 and scale=5, you will get 0.09999000000000001 if it's calculated with float.
Therefore, in Python, you can do something like:
from decimal import Decimal
def calculate_decimal_range(precision: int, scale: int) -> Decimal:
precision, scale = Decimal(precision), Decimal(scale)
return 10**(precision-scale) - 10**-scale
How would I go about rounded a number up the nearest multiple of 3?
i.e.
25 would return 27
1 would return 3
0 would return 3
6 would return 6
if(n > 0)
return Math.ceil(n/3.0) * 3;
else if( n < 0)
return Math.floor(n/3.0) * 3;
else
return 3;
Simply:
3.0*Math.ceil(n/3.0)
?
Here you are!
Number.prototype.roundTo = function(num) {
var resto = this%num;
if (resto <= (num/2)) {
return this-resto;
} else {
return this+num-resto;
}
}
Examples:
y = 236.32;
x = y.roundTo(10);
// results in x = 240
y = 236.32;
x = y.roundTo(5);
// results in x = 235
I'm answering this in psuedocode since I program mainly in SystemVerilog and Vera (ASIC HDL). % represents a modulus function.
round_number_up_to_nearest_divisor = number + ((divisor - (number % divisor)) % divisor)
This works in any case.
The modulus of the number calculates the remainder, subtracting that from the divisor results in the number required to get to the next divisor multiple, then the "magic" occurs. You would think that it's good enough to have the single modulus function, but in the case where the number is an exact multiple of the divisor, it calculates an extra multiple. ie, 24 would return 27. The additional modulus protects against this by making the addition 0.
As mentioned in a comment to the accepted answer, you can just use this:
Math.ceil(x/3)*3
(Even though it does not return 3 when x is 0, because that was likely a mistake by the OP.)
Out of the nine answers posted before this one (that have not been deleted or that do not have such a low score that they are not visible to all users), only the ones by Dean Nicholson (excepting the issue with loss of significance) and beauburrier are correct. The accepted answer gives the wrong result for negative numbers and it adds an exception for 0 to account for what was likely a mistake by the OP. Two other answers round a number to the nearest multiple instead of always rounding up, one more gives the wrong result for negative numbers, and three more even give the wrong result for positive numbers.
This function will round up to the nearest multiple of whatever factor you provide.
It will not round up 0 or numbers which are already multiples.
round_up = function(x,factor){ return x - (x%factor) + (x%factor>0 && factor);}
round_up(25,3)
27
round up(1,3)
3
round_up(0,3)
0
round_up(6,3)
6
The behavior for 0 is not what you asked for, but seems more consistent and useful this way. If you did want to round up 0 though, the following function would do that:
round_up = function(x,factor){ return x - (x%factor) + ( (x%factor>0 || x==0) && factor);}
round_up(25,3)
27
round up(1,3)
3
round_up(0,3)
3
round_up(6,3)
6
Building on #Makram's approach, and incorporating #Adam's subsequent comments, I've modified the original Math.prototype example such that it accurately rounds negative numbers in both zero-centric and unbiased systems:
Number.prototype.mround = function(_mult, _zero) {
var bias = _zero || false;
var base = Math.abs(this);
var mult = Math.abs(_mult);
if (bias == true) {
base = Math.round(base / mult) * _mult;
base = (this<0)?-base:base ;
} else {
base = Math.round(this / _mult) * _mult;
}
return parseFloat(base.toFixed(_mult.precision()));
}
Number.prototype.precision = function() {
if (!isFinite(this)) return 0;
var a = this, e = 1, p = 0;
while (Math.round(a * e) / e !== a) { a *= 10; p++; }
return p;
}
Examples:
(-2).mround(3) returns -3;
(0).mround(3) returns 0;
(2).mround(3) returns 3;
(25.4).mround(3) returns 24;
(15.12).mround(.1) returns 15.1
(n - n mod 3)+3
$(document).ready(function() {
var modulus = 3;
for (i=0; i < 21; i++) {
$("#results").append("<li>" + roundUp(i, modulus) + "</li>")
}
});
function roundUp(number, modulus) {
var remainder = number % modulus;
if (remainder == 0) {
return number;
} else {
return number + modulus - remainder;
}
}
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
Round up to nearest multiple of 3:
<ul id="results">
</ul>
A more general answer that might help somebody with a more general problem: if you want to round numbers to multiples of a fraction, consider using a library. This is a valid use case in GUI where decimals are typed into input and for instance you want to coerce them to multiples of 0.25, 0.2, 0.5 etc. Then the naive approach won't get you far:
function roundToStep(value, step) {
return Math.round(value / step) * step;
}
console.log(roundToStep(1.005, 0.01)); // 1, and should be 1.01
After hours of trying to write up my own function and looking up npm packages, I decided that Decimal.js gets the job done right away. It even has a toNearest method that does exactly that, and you can choose whether to round up, down, or to closer value (default).
const Decimal = require("decimal.js")
function roundToStep (value, step) {
return new Decimal(value).toNearest(step).toNumber();
}
console.log(roundToStep(1.005, 0.01)); // 1.01
RunKit example
Using remainder operator (modulus):
(n - 1 - (n - 1) % 3) + 3
By the code given below use can change any numbers and you can find any multiple of any number
let numbers = [8,11,15];
let multiple = 3
let result = numbers.map(myFunction);
function myFunction(n){
let answer = Math.round(n/multiple) * multiple ;
if (answer <= 0)
return multiple
else
return answer
}
console.log("Closest Multiple of " + multiple + " is " + result);
if(x%3==0)
return x
else
return ((x/3|0)+1)*3