Related
Preamble
I am looking into a system developed to be used by people who don't understand floating point arithmetic. For this reason the implementation of comparison for floating point numbers is not exposed to the people using the system. Currently comparisons of floating point numbers occur like this (And this cannot change due to legacy reasons):
// If either number is not finite, do default comparison
if (!IsFinite(num1) || !IsFinite(num2)) {
output = (num1 == num2);
} else {
// Get exponents of both numbers to determine epsilon for comparison
tmp = (OSINT32*)&num1+1;
exp1 = (((*tmp)>>20)& 0x07ff) - 1023;
tmp = (OSINT32*)&num2+1;
exp2 = (((*tmp)>>20)& 0x07ff) - 1023;
// Check if exponent is the same
if (exp1 != exp2) {
output = false;
} else {
// Calculate epsilon based on the magic number 47 (presumably calculated experimentally)?
epsilon = pow(2.0,exp1-47);
output = (fabs(num2-num1) <= eps);
}
}
The crux of it is, we calculate the epsilon based on the exponent of the number to stop users of the interface from making floating point comparison mistakes. A BIG NOTE: This is for people who are not software programmers so when they do pow(sqrt(2), 2) == 2 they don't get a big surprise. Maybe this is not the best idea, but like i said, it cannot be changed.
The Problem
We are having trouble figuring out how to display numbers to the user. In the past they simply displayed the number to 15 significant digits. But this results in problems of the following type:
>> SHOW 4.1 MOD 1
>> 0.099999999999999996
>> SHOW (4.1 MOD 1) == 0.1
>> TRUE
The comparison calls this correct because of the generated epsilon. But the printing of the number is confusing for people, how is 0.099999999999999996 = 0.1?. We need a way to show the number such that it represents the shortest number of significant bits to which a number compared to it would be TRUE. So for 0.099999999999999996 this would be 0.1, for 0.569999999992724327 it would be 0.569999999992725.
Is this possible?
You could calculate (num - pow(2.0, exp - 47)) and (num + pow(2.0, exp - 47)), convert both to string and search the smallest decimal between the range.
The exact value of a double is mantissa * pow(2.0, exp - 51) with an integer value mantissa, so if you add/subtract pow(2.0, exp - 47) you change the mantissa by 2^4, which should be exactly representable without rounding errors (unless in corner cases where the mantissa under/overflows, i.e if it is binary <= pow(2,4) or >= pow(2, 53) - pow(2,4). you might want to check for these*).
Then you have two strings, search the first position where the digits differ and cut it off there. Although there are a lot of rounding cases, especially when you not just want a correct number in the range, but the number closes to the input number (but that might not be needed). For example if you get "1.23" and "1.24", you might even want to output `"1.235".
This also shows that your example is wrong. epsilon for 0.569999999992724327 is (to maximal precision) 0.000000000000003552713678800500929355621337890625. The ranges are 0.569999999992720773889232077635824680328369140625 to 0.569999999992727879316589678637683391571044921875 and would be cut off at 0.569999999992725 (or 0.569999999992723 if you prefer that rounding)
An easier to implement sledgehammer method would be to output it to the maximal precision, cut one digit off, convert it back to double, check if it compares correctly. Then continue cutting, till the comparison fails. (could be improved with a binary search)
* They should still be exactly representable, but your comparison method will behave very odd. Consider num1 == 1 and num2 == 1 - pow(2.0, -53) = 0.99999999999999988897769753748434595763683319091796875. There difference 0.00000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125 is below your epsilon0.000000000000003552713678800500929355621337890625, but the comparison will say they differ, because they have different exponents
Yes, it's possible.
double a=fmod(4.1,1);
cerr<<std::setprecision(0)<<a<<"\n";
cerr<<std::setprecision(10)<<a<<"\n";
cerr<<std::setprecision(20)<<a<<"\n";
produces:
0.1
0.1
0.099999999999999644729
I think you just need to determine what level of display precision corresponds to your epsilon value.
We need a way to show the number such that it represents the shortest
number of significant bits to which a number compared to it would be
TRUE.
Can't you just do it the brute-force-ish way?
float num = 0.09999999;
for (int precision = 0; precision < MAX_PRECISION; ++precision) {
std::stringstream str;
float tmp = 0;
str << std::fixed << std::setprecision(precision) << num;
str >> tmp;
if (num == tmp) {
std::cout << std::fixed << std::setprecision(precision) << num;
break;
}
}
It is not possible to avoid confusing users given the constraints you've specified. For one thing, 0.0999999999999996447 compares equal to 0.1, and 0.1000000000000003664 compares equal to 0.1, but 0.0999999999999996447 does not compare equal to 0.1000000000000003664. For another, 2.00000000000001421 compares equal to 2.0, but 1.999999999999999778 does not compare equal to 2.0 even though it's much closer to 2.0 than 2.00000000000001421 is.
Enjoy.
Recently I decided to get into c++, and after going through the basics I decided to build a calculator using only iostream (just to challenge myself). After most of it was complete, I came across an issue with my loop for exponents. Whenever a multiple of Pi was used as the exponent, it looped way too many times. I fixed it in a somewhat redundant way and now I'm hoping someone might be able to tell me what happened. My unfixed code snippet is below. Ignore everything above and just look at the last bit of fully functioning code. All I was wondering was why values of pi would throw off the loop so much. Thanks.
bool TestForDecimal(double Num) /* Checks if the number given is whole or not */ {
if (Num > -INT_MAX && Num < INT_MAX && Num == (int)Num) {
return 0;
}
else {
return 1;
}
}
And then heres where it all goes wrong (Denominator is set to a value of 1)
if (TestForDecimal(Power) == 1) /* Checks if its decimal or not */ {
while (TestForDecimal(Power) == 1) {
Power = Power * 10;
Denominator = Denominator * 10;
}
}
If anyone could give me an explanation that would be great!
To clarify further, the while loop kept looping even after Power became a whole number (This only happened when Power was equal to a multiple of pi such as 3.1415 or 6.2830 etc.)
Heres a complete code you can try:
#include <iostream>
bool TestForDecimal(double Num) /* Checks if the number given is whole or not */ {
if (Num > -INT_MAX && Num < INT_MAX && Num == (int)Num) {
return 0;
}
else {
return 1;
}
}
void foo(double Power) {
double x = Power;
if (TestForDecimal(x) == 1) /* Checks if its decimal or not */ {
while (TestForDecimal(x) == 1) {
x = x * 10;
std::cout << x << std::endl;
}
}
}
int main() {
foo(3.145); // Substitute this with 3.1415 and it doesn't work (this was my problem)
system("Pause");
return 0;
}
What's wrong with doing something like this?
#include <cmath> // abs and round
#include <cfloat> // DBL_EPSILON
bool TestForDecimal(double Num) {
double diff = abs(round(Num) - Num);
// true if not a whole number
return diff > DBL_EPSILON;
}
The look is quite inefficient...what if Num is large...
A faster way could be something like
if (Num == static_cast<int>(Num))
or
if (Num == (int)Num)
if you prefer a C-style syntax.
Then a range check may be useful... it oes not make sense to ask if Num is an intger when is larger than 2^32 (about 4 billions)
Finally do not think od these numers as decimals. They are stored as binary numbers, instead of multiplying Power and Denominator by 2 you are better of multiplying them by 2.
Most decimal fractions can't be represented exactly in a binary floating-point format, so what you're trying to do can't work in general. For example, with a standard 64-bit double format, the closest representable value to 3.1415 is more like 3.1415000000000001812.
If you need to represent decimal fractions exactly, then you'll need a non-standard type. Boost.Multiprecision has some decimal types, and there's a proposal to add decimal types to the standard library; some implementations may have experimental support for this.
Beware. A double is (generally but I think you use a standard architecture) represented in IEE-754 format, that is mantissa * 2exponent. For a double, you have 53 bits for the mantissa part, one for the sign and 10 for the exponent. When you multiply it by 10 it will grow, and will get an integer value as soon as exponent will be greater than 53.
Unfortunately, unless you have a 64 bits system, an 53 bits integer cannot be represented as a 32 bits int, and your test will fail again.
So if you have a 32 bits system, you will never reach an integer value. You will more likely reach an infinity representation and stay there ...
The only use case where it could work, would be if you started with a number that can be represented with a small number of negative power of 2, for example 0.5 (1/2), 0.25(1/4), 0.75(1/2 + 1/4), giving almost all digits of mantissa part being 0.
After studying your "unfixed" function, from what I can tell, here's your basic algorithm:
double TestForDecimal(double Num) { ...
A function that accepts a double and returns a double. This would make sense if the returned value was the decimal value, but since that's not the case, perhaps you meant to use bool?
while (Num > 1) { make it less }
While there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it doesn't really address negative numbers with large magnitudes, so you'll run into problems there.
if (Num > -INT_MAX && Num < INT_MAX && Num == (int)Num) { return 0; }
This means that if Num is within the signed integer range and its integer typecast is equal to itself, return a 0 typecasted to a double. This means you don't care whether numbers outside the integer range are whole numbers or not. To fix this, change the condition to if (Num == (long)Num) since sizeof(long) == sizeof(double).
Perhaps the algorithm your function follows that I've just explained might shed some light on your problem.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Most effective way for float and double comparison
I have two values(floats) I am attempting to add together and average. The issue I have is that occasionally these values would add up to zero, thus not requiring them to be averaged.
The situation I am in specifically contains the values "-1" and "1", yet when added together I am given the value "-1.19209e-007" which is clearly not 0. Any information on this?
I'm sorry but this doesn't make sense to me.
Two floating point values, if they are exactly the same but with opposite sign, subtracted will produce always 0. This is how floating point operations works.
float a = 0.2f;
float b = -0.2f;
float f = (a - b) / 2;
printf("%f %d\n", f, f != 0); // will print out 0.0000 0
Will be always 0 also if the compiler doesn't optimize the code.
There is not any kind of rounding error to take in account if a and b have the same value but opposite sign! That is, if the higher bit of a is 0 and the higher bit of b is 1 and all other bits are the same, the result cannot be other than 0.
But if a and b are slightly different, of course, the result can be non-zero.
One possible solution to avoid this can be using a tolerance...
float f = (a + b) / 2;
if (abs(f) < 0.000001f)
f = 0;
We are using a simple tolerance to see if our value is near to zero.
A nice example code to show this is...
int main(int argc)
{
for (int i = -10000000; i <= 10000000 * argc; ++i)
{
if (i != 0)
{
float a = 3.14159265f / i;
float b = -a + (argc - 1);
float f = (a + b) / 2;
if (f != 0)
printf("%f %d\n", a, f);
}
}
printf("completed\n");
return 0;
}
I'm using "argc" here as a trick to force the compiler to not optimize out our code.
At least right off, this sounds like typical floating point imprecision.
The usual way to deal with it is to round your numbers to the correct number of significant digits. In this case, your average would be -1.19209e-08 (i.e., 0.00000001192). To (say) six or seven significant digits, that is zero.
Takes the sum of all your numbers, divide by your count. Round off your answer to something reasonable before you do prints, reports comparisons, or whatever you're doing.
again, do some searching on this but here is the basic explanation ...
the computer approximates floating point numbers by base 2 instead of base 10. this means that , for example, 0.2 (when converted to binary) is actually 0.001100110011 ... on forever. since the computer cannot add these on forever, it must approximate it.
because of these approximations, we lose "precision" of calculations. hence "single" and "double" precision floating point numbers. this is why you never test for a float to be actually 0. instead, you test whether is below some threshhold which you want to use as zero.
I want to test if a number double x is an integer power of 10. I could perhaps use cmath's log10 and then test if x == (int) x?
edit: Actually, my solution does not work because doubles can be very big, much bigger than int, and also very small, like fractions.
A lookup table will be by far the fastest and most precise way to do this; only about 600 powers of 10 are representable as doubles. You can use a hash table, or if the table is ordered from smallest to largest, you can rapidly search it with binary chop.
This has the advantage that you will get a "hit" if and only if your number is exactly the closest possible IEEE double to some power of 10. If this isn't what you want, you need to be more precise about exactly how you would like your solution to handle the fact that many powers of 10 can't be exactly represented as doubles.
The best way to construct the table is probably to use string -> float conversion; that way hopefully your library authors will already have solved the problem of how to do the conversion in a way that gives the most precise answer possible.
Your solution sounds good but I would replace the exact comparison with a tolerance one.
double exponent = log10(value);
double rounded = floor(exponent + 0.5);
if (fabs(exponent - rounded) < some_tolerance) {
//Power of ten
}
I am afraid you're in for a world of hurt. There is no way to cast down a very large or very small floating point number to a BigInt class because you lost precision when using the small floating point number.
For example float only has 6 digits of precision. So if you represent 109 as a float chances are it will be converted back as 1 000 000 145 or something like that: nothing guarantees what the last digits will be, they are off the precision.
You can of course use a much more precise representation, like double which has 15 digits of precision. So normally you should be able to represent integers from 0 to 1014 faithfully.
Finally some platforms may have a long long type with an ever greater precision.
But anyway, as soon as your value exceed the number of digits available to be converted back to an integer without loss... you can't test it for being a power of ten.
If you really need this precision, my suggestion is not to use a floating point number. There are mathematical libraries available with BigInt implementations or you can roll your own (though efficiency is difficult to achieve).
bool power_of_ten(double x) {
if(x < 1.0 || x > 10E15) {
warning("IEEE754 doubles can only precisely represent powers "
"of ten between 1 and 10E15, answer will be approximate.");
}
double exponent;
// power of ten if log10 of absolute value has no fractional part
return !modf(log10(fabs(x)), &exponent);
}
Depending on the platform your code needs to run on the log might be very expensive.
Since the amount of numbers that are 10^n (where n is natural) is very small,
it might be faster to just use a hardcoded lookup table.
(Ugly pseudo code follows:)
bool isPowerOfTen( int16 x )
{
if( x == 10 // n=1
|| x == 100 // n=2
|| x == 1000 // n=3
|| x == 10000 ) // n=4
return true;
return false;
}
This covers the whole int16 range and if that is all you need might be a lot faster.
(Depending on the platform.)
How about a code like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#define MAX 20
bool check_pow10(double num)
{
char arr[MAX];
sprintf(arr,"%lf",num);
char* ptr = arr;
bool isFirstOne = true;
while (*ptr)
{
switch (*ptr++)
{
case '1':
if (isFirstOne)
isFirstOne = false;
else
return false;
break;
case '0':
break;
case '.':
break;
default:
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
int main()
{
double number;
scanf("%lf",&number);
printf("isPower10: %s\n",check_pow10(number)?"yes":"no");
}
That would not work for negative powers of 10 though.
EDIT: works for negative powers also.
if you don't need it to be fast, use recursion. Pseudocode:
bool checkifpoweroften(double Candidadte)
if Candidate>=10
return (checkifpoweroften(Candidadte/10)
elsif Candidate<=0.1
return (checkifpoweroften(Candidadte*10)
elsif Candidate == 1
return 1
else
return 0
You still need to choose between false positives and false negatives and add tolerances accordingly, as other answers pointed out. The tolerances should apply to all comparisons, or else, for exemple, 9.99999999 would fail the >=10 comparison.
how about that:
bool isPow10(double number, double epsilon)
{
if (number > 0)
{
for (int i=1; i <16; i++)
{
if ( (number >= (pow((double)10,i) - epsilon)) &&
(number <= (pow((double)10,i) + epsilon)))
{
return true;
}
}
}
return false;
}
I guess if performance is an issue the few values could be precomputed, with or without the epsilon according to the needs.
A variant of this one:
double log10_value= log10(value);
double integer_value;
double fractional_value= modf(log10_value, &integer_value);
return fractional_value==0.0;
Note that the comparison to 0.0 is exact rather than within a particular epsilon since you want to ensure that log10_value is an integer.
EDIT: Since this sparked a bit of controversy due to log10 possibly being imprecise and the generic understanding that you shouldn't compare doubles without an epsilon, here's a more precise way of determining if a double is a power of 10 using only properties of powers of 10 and IEEE 754 doubles.
First, a clarification: a double can represent up to 1E22, as 1e22 has only 52 significant bits. Luckily, 5^22 also only has 52 significant bits, so we can determine if a double is (2*5)^n for n= [0, 22]:
bool is_pow10(double value)
{
int exponent;
double mantissa= frexp(value, &exponent);
int exponent_adjustment= exponent/10;
int possible_10_exponent= (exponent - exponent_adjustment)/3;
if (possible_10_exponent>=0 &&
possible_10_exponent<=22)
{
mantissa*= pow(2.0, exponent - possible_10_exponent);
return mantissa==pow(5.0, possible_10_exponent);
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
Since 2^10==1024, that adds an extra bit of significance that we have to remove from the possible power of 5.
As part of a numerical library test I need to choose base 10 decimal numbers that can be represented exactly in base 2. How do you detect in C++ if a base 10 decimal number can be represented exactly in base 2?
My first guess is as follows:
bool canBeRepresentedInBase2(const double &pNumberInBase10)
{
//check if a number in base 10 can be represented exactly in base 2
//reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numeral_system
bool funcResult = false;
int nbOfDoublings = 16*3;
double doubledNumber = pNumberInBase10;
for (int i = 0; i < nbOfDoublings ; i++)
{
doubledNumber = 2*doubledNumber;
double intPart;
double fracPart = modf(doubledNumber/2, &intPart);
if (fracPart == 0) //number can be represented exactly in base 2
{
funcResult = true;
break;
}
}
return funcResult;
}
I tested this function with the following values: -1.0/4.0, 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.205, 1.0/3.0, 7.0/8.0, 1.0, 256.0/255.0, 1.02, 99.005. It returns true for -1.0/4.0, 0.0, 7.0/8.0, 1.0, 99.005 which is correct.
Any better ideas?
I think what you are looking for is a number which has a fractional portion which is the sum of a sequence of negative powers of 2 (aka: 1 over a power of 2). I believe this should always be able to be represented exactly in IEEE floats/doubles.
For example:
0.375 = (1/4 + 1/8) which should have an exact representation.
If you want to generate these. You could try do something like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
int main() {
srand(time(0));
double value = 0.0;
for(int i = 1; i < 256; i *= 2) {
// doesn't matter, some random probability of including this
// fraction in our sequence..
if((rand() % 3) == 0) {
value += (1.0 / static_cast<double>(i));
}
}
std::cout << value << std::endl;
}
EDIT: I believe your function has a broken interface. It would be better if you had this:
bool canBeRepresentedExactly(int numerator, int denominator);
because not all fractions have exact representations, but the moment you shove it into a double, you've chosen a representation in binary... defeating the purpose of the test.
If you're checking to see if it's binary, it will always return true. If your method takes a double as the parameter, the number is already represented in binary (double is a binary type, usually 64 bits). Looking at your code, I think you're actually trying to see if it can be represented exactly as an integer, in which case why can't you just cast to int, then back to double and compare to the original. Any integer stored in a double that's within the range representable by an int should be exact, IIRC, because a 64 bit double has 53 bits of mantissa (and I'm assuming a 32 bit int). That means if they're equal, it's an integer.
If you're passing in a double, then by definition, it has already been represented in binary and if not, then you've already lost accuracy.
Maybe try passing in numerator and denominator of the fraction to the function. Then you have not lost accuracy and can check to see if you can come up with a binary representation of the answer that is the same as the fraction you've passed in.
As rmeador have pointed out, it might not be a good idea to accept the double, because the number has been converted to a double, an possible approximation to the number that you're trying to check.
So, in a very abstract way, you should split your check into integers, and decimals. Integers should not be too large such that the mantissa cannot express all the integers, (e.g. 9007199254740993 should not be represented properly by a 64-bit fp)
Decimal points may be a bit easier, mentally, because if anything after the decimal point (e.g. yyy in xxx.yyy) contains a factor of anything other than 2, the floating point repeats in order to try to represent it. It's the reason why 1/3 cannot be represented with finite digits in base 10 = base (2*5)... See Recurring Decimal
EDIT: As the comments pointed out, if the decimal number has a factor of anything other than 1/2, that would be the mathematically correct way to say it...
As others have mentioned, your method doesn't do what you mean, since you pass a number represented as a (binary) double. The method actually detects, if the number you passed is in the form integer/2^48. This should fail for numbers like (1+2^-50), which is binary, and 259/255, which isn't.
If you really want to test a number for being exactly representable by finite binary string, you have to pass a number in an exact form.
You can't pass IN a Double because it's already lost precision. You should be able to use the toString() method of Double to check for this. (example in Java)
public static Boolean canBeRepresentedInBase2(String thenumber)
{
// Reuturns true of the parsed Double did not loose precision.
// Only works for numbers that are not converted into scientific notation by toString.
return thenumber.equals(Double.parseDouble(thenumber).toString())
}
You asked for C++ but maybe this algorithm will help. I use "EE" to mean "exactly expressible as a float."
Start with a decimal representation of the number you want to test. Remove any trailing zeroes (that is, 0.123450000 becomes 0.12345).
1) If the number is not an integer, check to see if the rightmost digit is 5. If it's not, then stop -- the number is not EE.
2) Multiply the number by 2. If the result is an integer, then stop -- the number is EE. Otherwise, go back to step 1.
I don't have rigorous proof for this but a "warm fuzzy." Fire up Calculator and enter your favorite fractional power of 2, like 0.0000152587890625. Add it to itself a few dozen times (I just hit "+" once then "=" a bunch of times). If there are any non-zero digits to the right of the decimal point, the last digit is always 5.
Here is the code in C# and it works. Because it works with the Decimal data - there are no inherent rounding errors that show up in the original code which uses double. (decimal in C# stores using base 10 instead of base 2 - which is what double does)
static bool canBeRepresentedInBase2(decimal pNumberInBase10)
{
//check if a number in base 10 can be represented exactly in base 2
//reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numeral_system
bool funcResult = false;
int nbOfDoublings = 16*3;
decimal doubledNumber = pNumberInBase10;
for (int i = 0; i < nbOfDoublings ; i++)
{
doubledNumber = 2*doubledNumber;
decimal intPart;
decimal fracPart = ModF(doubledNumber/2, out intPart);
if (fracPart == 0) //number can be represented exactly in base 2
{
funcResult = true;
break;
}
}
return funcResult;
}
static decimal ModF(decimal number, out decimal intPart)
{
intPart = Math.Floor(number);
decimal fractional = number - (intPart);
return fractional;
}
Tested with the following code (where WL does a Console.WritelLine - SnippetCompiler)
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(-1.0M/4.0M)); //true
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(0.0M)); //true
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(0.1M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(0.2M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(0.205M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(1.0M/3.0M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(7.0M/8.0M)); //true
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(1.0M)); //true
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(256.0M/255.0M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(1.02M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(99.005M)); //false
WL(canBeRepresentedInBase2(2.53M)); //false
Or even easier:
return pNumber == floor(pNumber);
On the other hand, if you have some weird fractional representation (numerator denominator pair, or string with a decimal in it, or something), and you really do want to know if the value can be exactly represented as a double, it's a bit harder.
But you would need a different parameter(s) for that...
Given a number r it can be represented exactly with finite precision in base 2 iff r can be written as r = m/2^n, where m, n are integers, and n >= 0.
For example 1/7 doesn't have a finite binary expression, also 1/6 and 1/10 can't be written with a finite expression in base 2.
But 1/4+1/32+1/1024, have a finite expression in base.
PS: In general you can express a number r with finite digits in a base b iff r=m/b^n where m, n are integers an n >= 0.
PPS: As almost everybody has stated previously using a double as input is a bad idea, because you are loosing precision, and you will end up with a different number.
I don't think this is what he's asking... I think he's looking for a solution that will tell him if a number can be represented EXACTLY in binary form. For example, 33.3.. That's a number cannot be represented in binary, because it will go on forever, so depending on your FPU settings, it will be represented as something like "33.333333333333336". So, it looks like his method will do the job. I don't know of a better way off the top of my head.
\
Ignoring the general criticism of using a double...
For a general finite decimal, you can determine if it has a finite representation in binary with the following algorithm:
Extract the fraction part of the decimal f.
Determine f x 10b = c, where b and c are integers.
Determine 2d >= 10b, where d is an integer.
If c x 2b / 10b is an integer, then the decimal has a finite representation in binary. Otherwise, it doesn't.
You can generalize this to any two bases.