I am new to coding and javascript and was asked, for an assignment, to convert base 10 numbers to a binary base without using specific Javascript built in methods (like alert(a.toString(16))), and I am only allowed to use loops,arrays and functions. This is what i have so far:
var number = prompt("Enter an unsigned base 10 number");
if (number>=0) {
var base = prompt("Enter b for binary, o for octal, or h for hexadecimal");
if (base=="h"||base=="H") {
;
}
So as you can see, I don't have much to go on. I was curious as to what equation or formula I would use to convert the base 10 number, as well as how i'm supposed to show A=10, B=11, C=12 and so forth for a hexadecimal base. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
edit: This is a rather complicated way to do it,
as Alnitak showed me (see discussion below).
It is more a scibble, or the long way by foot.
Short explanation:
If we want to get the binary of the decimal number 10,
we have to try 2^n so that 2^n is still smaller than 10.
For example 2^3 = 8 (that is OK). But 2^4 = 16 (thats too big).
So we have 2^3 and store a 1 for that in an array at index 3.
Now we have to get the rest of 10-2^3, which is 2, and have to
make the same calculation again until we get a difference of zero.
At last we have to reverse the array because its the other way arround.
var a = prompt("Enter an unsigned base 10 number");
var arr = [];
var i = 0;
function decToBin(x) {
y = Math.pow(2, i);
if (y < x) {
arr[i] = 0;
i++;
decToBin(x);
} else if (y > x) {
i--;
newX = (x - Math.pow(2, i));
arr[i] = 1;
i = 0;
decToBin(newX)
} else if (y == x) {
arr[i] = 1;
result = arr.reverse().join();
}
return result;
}
var b = decToBin(a); // var b holds the result
document.write(b);
Related
I'm trying to create my own decimal to binary converter with the method of decrementing the inputted variable (decimal value), by dividing it by 2 and storing the remainder (like 2nd grade math remainder), which is always either 0 or 1. Each of the remainder values i thin should be stored in an array and I think maybe put in backwards so that the most significant digit is first in the array (this is because when decrementing the remainer values are filled in left to right). Soooo yea i dont really know how to store the remainder values in an array using a function
Thanks in advance and if something is confusing then feel free to ask because im not even sure if this is the best method of doing this its just what i came up with
function decimalToBinary(num) {
var bin = 0;
while (num > 0) {
bin = num % 2 + bin;
num >>= 1; // basically /= 2 without remainder if any
}
alert("That decimal in binary is " + bin);
}
Your code is almost correct. The main problem is that bin starts out as 0; when you add a digit, they are added numerically, so your code ends up just counting the binary 1s: in this manner, 10 is initial 0, and +1+0+1+0, resulting in 2. You want to handle it as a string: ""+1+0+1+0 results in 1010. So, the only needed change is:
var bin = "";
If you want to solve it using arrays, with minimal changes to your code, it would be:
function decimalToBinary(num) {
var bin = [];
while (num > 0) {
bin.unshift(num % 2);
num >>= 1; // basically /= 2 without remainder if any
}
alert("That decimal in binary is " + bin.join(''));
}
Here, I use .unshift to add an element to the head of the array (and renumbering the remaining elements); .join() to collect them all into a string.
Or this:
function decimalToBinary(num) {
var bin = [];
while (num > 0) {
bin[bin.length] = num % 2;
num >>= 1; // basically /= 2 without remainder if any
}
alert("That decimal in binary is " + bin.reverse().join(''));
}
This is not as good, but illustrates some more things you can do with arrays: taking their length, setting an arbitrary element, and flipping them around.
I have written a custom Decimal to Binary method:
function toBinary (input) {
let options = [1];
let max = 0;
let i = 1;
while(i) {
max = Math.pow(2, i);
if (max > input) break;
options.push(max);
i++;
}
let j = options.length;
let result = new Array(j);
result.fill("0");
while(j >= 0) {
if (options[j] <= input) {
result[j] = "1"
input = input - options[j];
}
j--;
}
return [...result].reverse().join("");
}
//Test the toBin method with built-in toString(2)
toBinary(100) === (100).toString(2) // true
toBinary(1) === (1).toString(2) // true
toBinary(128) === (128).toString(2) // true
From other searches, I found that this problem is called 'Hamming Weight' or 'Population Count'. There are lot of answers out there given with so many statistics?
I need to find the solution in a simple way? Complexity is not a big deal.
Is there any in-built function in JavaScript like Java's Integer.bitCount?
I'm currently doing this as follows.
var binary = 3;
var original = binary;
var count = 0;
while(binary>0)
{
binary = binary >> 1 << 1;
if(original-binary==1)
count++;
original = binary >> 1;
binary = original;
}
Is there a better, more simple as well as elegant way for this?
try this
var binary = 10;
var result = binary.toString(2); //Converts to binary
var count = result.split(1);// count -1 is your answer
alert((result.split('1').length-1));
can also be written as
(binary.toString(2).split('1').length-1)
toString(2) : helps to split it in a base2 format which is binary, can do this in a range of 2- 36 (iam not sure about the range)
If you want to count 1 digit in binary representation we can use regular expression like this.
number.toString(2).match(/1/g).length
A simple way without using built-in functions:
function f(n){
let i = 0;
do if(n&1) ++i; while(n>>=1)
return i;
}
// example:
console.log(f(7)); // 3
function numOfOnes(n) {
if(n === 0) return n;
return (n & 1) + numOfOnes(n >>= 1);
}
Basically this approach belongs to recursive call.
It has the base condition when no number to evaluate. Otherwise it calls itself on (n >>= 1) and add last digit (n & 1) to result.
eg. 7 has binary representation 111 = 1+1+1 = 3
17 has binary representation 10001 = 1+0+0+0+1 = 2
function countOnesInDecimal(num) {
let count = 0;
let binary = num.toString(2);
const splitted = binary.split('');
for (const iterator of splitted) {
if (iterator === `1`) {
count += 1;
}
}
return count;
}
console.log(countOnesInDecimal(3));
So, I have successfully written the Fibonacci sequence to create an array with the sequence of numbers, but I need to know the length (how many digits) the 500th number has.
I've tried the below code, but its finding the length of the scientific notation (22 digits), not the proper 105 it should be returning.
Any ideas how to convert a scientific notation number into an actual integer?
var fiblength = function fiblength(nth) {
var temparr = [0,1];
for(var i = 2; i<=nth; i++){
var prev = temparr[temparr.length-2],
cur = temparr[temparr.length-1],
next = prev + cur;
temparr.push(next);
}
var final = temparr[temparr.length-1].toString().length;
console.log(temparr[temparr.length-1]);
return final;
};
a = fiblength(500);
console.log(a);
Why not use the simple procedure of dividing the number by 10 until the number is less than 1.
Something as simple as this should work (a recursive def obv works as well)
function getDigits(n) {
var digits = 0;
while(n >= 1) {
n/=10;
digits += 1;
}
return digits;
}
getDigits(200);//3
getDigits(3.2 * 10e20);//=>22
Here's a solution in constant time:
function fiblength(n) {
return Math.floor((n>1)?n*.2089+.65051:1);
}
Let's explain how I arrived to it.
All previous solutions will probably not work for N>300 unless you have a BigNumber library in place. Also they're pretty inneficient.
There is a formula to get any Fibonacci number, which uses PHI (golden ratio number), it's very simple:
F(n) = ABS((PHI^n)/sqrt(5))
Where PHI=1.61803399 (golden ratio, found all over the fibonacci sequence)
If you want to know how many digits a number has, you calculate the log base 10 and add 1 to that. Let's call that function D(n) = log10(n) + 1
So what you want fiblength to be is in just the following function
fiblength(n) = D(F(n)) // number of digits of a fibonacci number...
Let's work it out, so you see what the one liner code will be like once you use math.
Substitute F(n)
fiblength(n) = D(ABS((PHI^n)/sqrt(5)))
Now apply D(n) on that:
fiblength(n) = log10(ABS((PHI^n)/sqrt(5))) + 1
So, since log(a/b) = log(a) - log(b)
fiblength(n) = log10(ABS((PHI^n))) - log10(sqrt(5))) + 1
and since log(a^n) = n * log(a)
fiblength(n) = n*log10(PHI) - log10(sqrt(5))) + 1
Then we evaluate those logarithms since they're all on constants
and add the special cases of n=0 and n=1 to return 1
function fiblength(n) {
return Math.floor((n>1)?n*.2089+.65051:1);
}
Enjoy :)
fiblength(500) => 105 //no iterations necessary.
Most of the javascript implementations, internally use 64 bit numbers. So, if the number we are trying to represent is very big, it uses scientific notation to represent those numbers. So, there is no pure "javascript numbers" based solution for this. You may have to look for other BigNum libraries.
As far as your code is concerned, you want only the 500th number, so you don't have to store the entire array of numbers in memory, just previous and current numbers are enough.
function fiblength(nth) {
var previous = 0, current = 1, temp;
for(var i = 2; i<=nth; i++){
temp = current;
current = previous + current;
previous = temp;
}
return current;
};
My Final Solution
function fiblength(nth) {
var a = 0, b = 1, c;
for(var i=2;i<=nth;i++){
c=b;
b=a+b;
a=c;
}
return Math.floor(Math.log(b)/Math.log(10))+1;
}
console.log(fiblength(500));
Thanks for the help!!!
The problem is because the resulting number was converted into a string before any meaningful calculations could be made. Here's how it could have been solved in the original code:
var fiblength = function fiblength(nth) {
var temparr = [0,1];
for(var i = 2; i<=nth; i++){
var prev = temparr[temparr.length-2],
cur = temparr[temparr.length-1],
next = prev + cur;
temparr.push(next);
}
var x = temparr[temparr.length-1];
console.log(x);
var length = 1;
while (x > 1) {
length = length + 1;
x = x/10;
}
return length;
};
console.log ( fiblength(500) );
So, to be short,
3√(-8) = (-8)1/3
console.log(Math.pow(-8,1/3));
//Should be -2
But when I test it out, it outputs
NaN
Why? Is it a bug or it is expected to be like this in the first place? I am using JavaScript to draw graphs, but this messes up the graph.
You can use this snippet to calculate it. It also works for other powers, e.g. 1/4, 1/5, etc.
function nthroot(x, n) {
try {
var negate = n % 2 == 1 && x < 0;
if(negate)
x = -x;
var possible = Math.pow(x, 1 / n);
n = Math.pow(possible, n);
if(Math.abs(x - n) < 1 && (x > 0 == n > 0))
return negate ? -possible : possible;
} catch(e){}
}
nthroot(-8, 3);
Source: http://gotochriswest.com/blog/2011/05/06/cube-root-an-beyond/
A faster approach for just calculating the cubic root:
Math.cbrt = function(x) {
var sign = x === 0 ? 0 : x > 0 ? 1 : -1;
return sign * Math.pow(Math.abs(x), 1 / 3);
}
Math.cbrt(-8);
Update
To find an integer based cubic root, you can use the following function, inspired by this answer:
// positive-only cubic root approximation
function cbrt(n)
{
var a = n; // note: this is a non optimized assumption
while (a * a * a > n) {
a = Math.floor((2 * a + (n / (a * a))) / 3);
}
return a;
}
It starts with an assumption that converges to the closest integer a for which a^3 <= n. This function can be adjusted in the same way to support a negative base.
There's no bug; you are raising a negative number to a fractional power; hence, the NaN.
The top hit on google for this is from Dr Math the explanation is pretty good. It says for for real numbers (not complex numbers anyway), a negative number raised to a fractional power may not be a real number. The simplest example is probably
-4 ^ (1/2)
which is essentially computing the square root of -4. Even though the cubic root of -8 does have real solutions, I think that most software libraries find it more efficient not to do all the complex arithmetic and return NaN only when the imaginary part is nonzero and give you the nice real answer otherwise.
EDIT
Just to make absolutely clear that NaN is the intended result, see the official ECMAScript 5.1 Specification, Section 15.8.2.13. It says:
If x<0 and x is finite and y is finite and y is not an integer, the result is NaN.
Again, even though SOME instances of raising negative numbers to fractional powers have exactly one real root, many languages just do the NaN thing for all cases of negative numbers to fractional roots.
Please do not think JavaScript is the only such language. C++ does the same thing:
If x is finite negative and y is finite but not an integer value, it causes a domain error.
Two key problems:
Mathematically, there are multiple cubic roots of a negative number: -2, but also 2 complex roots (see cube roots of unity).
Javascript's Math object (and most other standard math libraries) will not do fractional powers of negative numbers. It converts the fractional power to a float before the function receives it, so you are asking the function to compute a floating point power of a negative number, which may or may not have a real solution. So it does the pragmatic thing and refuses to attempt to calculate such a value.
If you want to get the correct answer, you'll need to decide how mathematically correct you want to be, and write those rules into a non-standard implementation of pow.
All library functions are limited to avoid excessive calculation times and unnecessary complexity.
I like the other answers, but how about overriding Math.pow so it would be able to work with all nth roots of negative numbers:
//keep the original method for proxying
Math.pow_ = Math.pow;
//redefine the method
Math.pow = function(_base, _exponent) {
if (_base < 0) {
if (Math.abs(_exponent) < 1) {
//we're calculating nth root of _base, where n === 1/_exponent
if (1 / _exponent % 2 === 0) {
//nth root of a negative number is imaginary when n is even, we could return
//a string like "123i" but this would completely mess up further computation
return NaN;
}/*else if (1 / _exponent % 2 !== 0)*/
//nth root of a negative number when n is odd
return -Math.pow_(Math.abs(_base), _exponent);
}
}/*else if (_base >=0)*/
//run the original method, nothing will go wrong
return Math.pow_(_base, _exponent);
};
Fiddled with some test cases, give me a shout if you spot a bug!
So I see a bunch of methods that revolve around Math.pow(...) which is cool, but based on the wording of the bounty I'm proposing a slightly different approach.
There are several computational approximations for solving roots, some taking quicker steps than others. Ultimately the stopping point comes down to the degree of precision desired(it's really up to you/the problem being solved).
I'm not going to explain the math in fine detail, but the following are implementations of cubed root approximations that passed the target test(bounty test - also added negative range, because of the question title). Each iteration in the loop (see the while(Math.abs(xi-xi0)>precision) loops in each method) gets a step closer to the desired precision. Once precision is achieved a format is applied to the number so it's as precise as the calculation derived from the iteration.
var precision = 0.0000000000001;
function test_cuberoot_fn(fn) {
var tested = 0,
failed = 0;
for (var i = -100; i < 100; i++) {
var root = fn(i*i*i);
if (i !== root) {
console.log(i, root);
failed++;
}
tested++;
}
if (failed) {
console.log("failed %d / %d", failed, tested);
}else{
console.log("Passed test");
}
}
test_cuberoot_fn(newtonMethod);
test_cuberoot_fn(halleysMethod);
Newton's approximation Implementation
function newtonMethod(cube){
if(cube == 0){//only John Skeet and Chuck Norris
return 0; //can divide by zero, we'll have
} //to settle for check and return
var xi = 1;
var xi0 = -1;
while(Math.abs(xi-xi0)>precision){//precision = 0.0000000000001
xi0=xi;
xi = (1/3)*((cube/(xi*xi))+2*xi);
}
return Number(xi.toPrecision(12));
}
Halley's approximation Implementation
note Halley's approximation takes quicker steps to solving the cube, so it's computationally faster than newton's approximation.
function halleysMethod(cube){
if(cube == 0){//only John Skeet and Chuck Norris
return 0; //can divide by zero, we'll have
} //to settle for check and return
var xi = 1;
var xi0 = -1;
while(Math.abs(xi-xi0)>precision){//precision = 0.0000000000001
xi0=xi;
xi = xi*((xi*xi*xi + 2*cube)/(2*xi*xi*xi+cube));
}
return Number(xi.toPrecision(12));
}
It's Working in Chrome Console
function cubeRoot(number) {
var num = number;
var temp = 1;
var inverse = 1 / 3;
if (num < 0) {
num = -num;
temp = -1;
}
var res = Math.pow(num, inverse);
var acc = res - Math.floor(res);
if (acc <= 0.00001)
res = Math.floor(res);
else if (acc >= 0.99999)
res = Math.ceil(res);
return (temp * res);
}
cubeRoot(-64) // -4
cubeRoot(64) // 4
As a heads up, in ES6 there is now a Math.cbrt function.
In my testing in Google chrome it appears to work almost twice as fast as Math.pow. Interestingly I had to add up the results otherwise chrome did a better job of optimizing away the pow function.
//do a performance test on the cube root function from es6
var start=0, end=0, k=0;
start = performance.now();
k=0;
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.cbrt(i);
//k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("cbrt took:" + (end-start),k);
k=0;
start = performance.now();
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.pow(i,0.33333333);
//k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("pow took:" + (end-start),k);
k=0;
start = performance.now();
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.cbrt(i);
k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("cbrt took:" + (end-start),k);
k=0;
start = performance.now();
for (var i=0.0; i<10000000.0; i+=1.0)
{
var j = Math.pow(i,0.33333333);
k+=j;
}
end = performance.now();
console.log("pow took:" + (end-start),k);
Result:
cbrt took:468.28200000163633 0
pow took:77.21999999921536 0
cbrt took:546.8039999977918 1615825909.5248165
pow took:869.1149999940535 1615825826.7510242
//aren't cube roots of negative numbers the same as positive, except for the sign?
Math.cubeRoot= function(n, r){
var sign= (n<0)? -1: 1;
return sign*Math.pow(Math.abs(n), 1/3);
}
Math.cubeRoot(-8)
/* returned value: (Number)
-2
*/
Just want to highlight that in ES6 there is a native cubic root function. So you can just do this (check the support here)
Math.cbrt(-8) will return you -2
this works with negative number and negative exponent:
function nthRoot(x = 0, r = 1) {
if (x < 0) {
if (r % 2 === 1) return -nthRoot(-x, r)
if (r % 2 === -1) return -1 / nthRoot(-x, -r)
}
return x ** (1 / r)
}
examples:
nthRoot( 16, 2) 4
nthRoot( 16, -2) 0.25
nthRoot(-16, 2) NaN
nthRoot(-16, -2) NaN
nthRoot( 27, 3) 3
nthRoot( 27, -3) 0.3333333333333333
nthRoot(-27, 3) -3
nthRoot(-27, -3) -0.3333333333333333
What I would like to have is the almost opposite of Number.prototype.toPrecision(), meaning that when i have number, how many decimals does it have? E.g.
(12.3456).getDecimals() // 4
For anyone wondering how to do this faster (without converting to string), here's a solution:
function precision(a) {
var e = 1;
while (Math.round(a * e) / e !== a) e *= 10;
return Math.log(e) / Math.LN10;
}
Edit: a more complete solution with edge cases covered:
function precision(a) {
if (!isFinite(a)) return 0;
var e = 1, p = 0;
while (Math.round(a * e) / e !== a) { e *= 10; p++; }
return p;
}
One possible solution (depends on the application):
var precision = (12.3456 + "").split(".")[1].length;
If by "precision" you mean "decimal places", then that's impossible because floats are binary. They don't have decimal places, and most values that have a small number of decimal places have recurring digits in binary, and when they're translated back to decimal that doesn't necessarily yield the original decimal number.
Any code that works with the "decimal places" of a float is liable to produce unexpected results on some numbers.
There is no native function to determine the number of decimals. What you can do is convert the number to string and then count the offset off the decimal delimiter .:
Number.prototype.getPrecision = function() {
var s = this + "",
d = s.indexOf('.') + 1;
return !d ? 0 : s.length - d;
};
(123).getPrecision() === 0;
(123.0).getPrecision() === 0;
(123.12345).getPrecision() === 5;
(1e3).getPrecision() === 0;
(1e-3).getPrecision() === 3;
But it's in the nature of floats to fool you. 1 may just as well be represented by 0.00000000989 or something. I'm not sure how well the above actually performs in real life applications.
Basing on #blackpla9ue comment and considering numbers exponential format:
function getPrecision (num) {
var numAsStr = num.toFixed(10); //number can be presented in exponential format, avoid it
numAsStr = numAsStr.replace(/0+$/g, '');
var precision = String(numAsStr).replace('.', '').length - num.toFixed().length;
return precision;
}
getPrecision(12.3456); //4
getPrecision(120.30003300000); //6, trailing zeros are truncated
getPrecision(15); //0
getPrecision(120.000)) //0
getPrecision(0.0000005); //7
getPrecision(-0.01)) //2
Try the following
function countDecimalPlaces(number) {
var str = "" + number;
var index = str.indexOf('.');
if (index >= 0) {
return str.length - index - 1;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
Based on #boolean_Type's method of handling exponents, but avoiding the regex:
function getPrecision (value) {
if (!isFinite(value)) { return 0; }
const [int, float = ''] = Number(value).toFixed(12).split('.');
let precision = float.length;
while (float[precision - 1] === '0' && precision >= 0) precision--;
return precision;
}
Here are a couple of examples, one that uses a library (BigNumber.js), and another that doesn't use a library. Assume you want to check that a given input number (inputNumber) has an amount of decimal places that is less than or equal to a maximum amount of decimal places (tokenDecimals).
With BigNumber.js
import BigNumber from 'bignumber.js'; // ES6
// const BigNumber = require('bignumber.js').default; // CommonJS
const tokenDecimals = 18;
const inputNumber = 0.000000000000000001;
// Convert to BigNumber
const inputNumberBn = new BigNumber(inputNumber);
// BigNumber.js API Docs: http://mikemcl.github.io/bignumber.js/#dp
console.log(`Invalid?: ${inputNumberBn.dp() > tokenDecimals}`);
Without BigNumber.js
function getPrecision(numberAsString) {
var n = numberAsString.toString().split('.');
return n.length > 1
? n[1].length
: 0;
}
const tokenDecimals = 18;
const inputNumber = 0.000000000000000001;
// Conversion of number to string returns scientific conversion
// So obtain the decimal places from the scientific notation value
const inputNumberDecimalPlaces = inputNumber.toString().split('-')[1];
// Use `toFixed` to convert the number to a string without it being
// in scientific notation and with the correct number decimal places
const inputNumberAsString = inputNumber.toFixed(inputNumberDecimalPlaces);
// Check if inputNumber is invalid due to having more decimal places
// than the permitted decimal places of the token
console.log(`Invalid?: ${getPrecision(inputNumberAsString) > tokenDecimals}`);
Assuming number is valid.
let number = 0.999;
let noOfPlaces = number.includes(".") //includes or contains
? number.toString().split(".").pop().length
: 0;
5622890.31 ops/s (91.58% slower):
function precision (n) {
return (n.toString().split('.')[1] || '').length
}
precision(1.0123456789)
33004904.53 ops/s (50.58% slower):
function precision (n) {
let e = 1
let p = 0
while(Math.round(n * e) / e !== n) {
e *= 10
p++
}
return p
}
precision(1.0123456789)
62610550.04 ops/s (6.25% slower):
function precision (n) {
let cur = n
let p = 0
while(!Number.isInteger(cur)) {
cur *= 10
p++
}
return p
}
precision(1.0123456789)
66786361.47 ops/s (fastest):
function precision (n) {
let cur = n
let p = 0
while(Math.floor(cur) !== cur) {
cur *= 10
p++
}
return p
}
precision(1.0123456789)
Here is a simple solution
First of all, if you pass a simple float value as 12.1234 then most of the below/above logics may work but if you pass a value as 12.12340, then it may exclude a count of 0. For e.g, if the value is 12.12340 then it may give you a result of 4 instead of 5. As per your problem statement, if you ask javascript to split and count your float value into 2 integers then it won't include trailing 0s of it.
Let's satisfy our requirement here with a trick ;)
In the below function you need to pass a value in string format and it will do your work
function getPrecision(value){
a = value.toString()
console.log('a ->',a)
b = a.split('.')
console.log('b->',b)
return b[1].length
getPrecision('12.12340') // Call a function
For an example, run the below logic
value = '12.12340'
a = value.toString()
b = a.split('.')
console.log('count of trailing decimals->',b[1].length)
That's it! It will give you the exact count for normal float values as well as the float values with trailing 0s!
Thank you!
This answer adds to Mourner's accepted solution by making the function more robust. As noted by many, floating point precision makes such a function unreliable. For example, precision(0.1+0.2) yields 17 rather than 1 (this might be computer specific, but for this example see https://jsfiddle.net/s0v17jby/5/).
IMHO, there are two ways around this: 1. either properly define a decimal type, using e.g. https://github.com/MikeMcl/decimal.js/, or 2. define an acceptable precision level which is both OK for your use case and not a problem for the js Number representation (8 bytes can safely represent a total of 16 digits AFAICT). For the latter workaround, one can write a more robust variant of the proposed function:
const MAX_DECIMAL_PRECISION = 9; /* must be <= 15 */
const maxDecimalPrecisionFloat = 10**MAX_DECIMAL_PRECISION;
function precisionRobust(a) {
if (!isFinite(a)) return 0;
var e = 1, p = 0;
while ( ++p<=MAX_DECIMAL_PRECISION && Math.round( ( Math.round(a * e) / e - a ) * maxDecimalPrecisionFloat ) !== 0) e *= 10;
return p-1;
}
In the above example, the maximum precision of 9 means this accepts up to 6 digits before the decimal point and 9 after (so this would work for numbers less than one million and with a maximum of 9 decimal points). If your use-case numbers are smaller then you can choose to make this precision even greater (but with a maximum of 15). It turns out that, for calculating precision, this function seems to do OK on larger numbers as well (though that would no longer be the case if we were, say, adding two rounded numbers within the precisionRobust function).
Finally, since we now know the maximum useable precision, we can further avoid infinite loops (which I have not been able to replicate but which still seem to cause problems for some).