"Jerry W. Lewis" wrote:

I have never seen an instance where Excel's basic arithmetic was not correct
per the IEEE 754 standard. Moreover I have always found integer arithmetic
exactly match naive expectations. I have been unable to reproduce your
results despite attempts in 4 Office versions (2000, 2002, 2003, & 2007) on 3
PCs.

I never doubted Excel math routines myself. Until now.

The most common problem when people think they see an Excel math error is
that their inputs are calculated results that are formatted to hide decimal
places that do enter into the calculation in question. Did you follow your
own directions (copy/paste from your newsgroup post into Excel and sum those
values)?

Ghaaa. Do I have 'Idiot" tattooed on my forehead? Of course they're not
calculated results, or based on results that have come from a calculation, or
based on results that at any time in the past have not been integers. Thus
far myself and another person have replicated the experiment on two different
processors: An Intel P4 2.8 GHz Hyperthreaded, and an Athlon 64 X2.

Yes I did follow my own directions. The figures supplied were from a new
spreadsheet created by pasting those 8 values into it to make sure it was
real, and double-checking the result manually.

The next most common problem, is that Tools|Options|Calculation is set to
manual recalculation, so that calculations are not updated when inputs are
edited.

Highlight column of numbers + 1 row. Click on Sum button. Sum appears. No
editing involved.

Another problem that can occur with multivariate functions (such as SUM())
is that text that only looks like numbers will be ignored, but I see no
opportunity in your example for that to be an issue.

Quite correct.

If you still get your reported result after ruling out the preceding causes,
is it reproducible in other packages? My guess is that Excel's basic
arithmetic is performed in the processor chip instead of in software.
Similarly, I doubt that other packages would re-invent the wheel, so I would
expect a processor math bug to be manifested in other calculational software.
If it is reproducible in other packages, you should contact the manufacturer
of your computer to report a defective chip.

The reason I found this result in the first place is because the result from
Excel and SQL Server were different. It turns out that SQL Server was
correct, but it contains the concept of an integer, so it can have no
round-off error in a case like this. Excel has no concept of an integer, so
it can have a round-off error. Hence, this is not a processor math bug, or
else SQL Server would have given me the same result as Excel. It did not.
It gave me the correct result.

If the problem is not attributable to any of these sources, then you should
post back with the exact cells/formulas involved as well as the exact version
of Excel, the operating system, and hardware information.

You have the exact cells. Verbatim. Cut and pasted from Excel directly
into this forum. The only formula is the one advised: Sum the columns, so
the only formula involved is the one you create yourself. Operating system
in all cases is Windows XP Professional. Hardware is:

1) Pentium 4 2.8 GHz hyperthreaded.
2) Athlon 64 x2 6800+ Dual core.

Just a quick check. You guys are actually conducting the experiment,
correct? You're not just dusting me off with facts untried and untested
because you don't believe me, right?

It wouldn't be the first time that happened. Just blow off the experiment
because you don't believe it, but claim that you actually performed the
experiment for the sake of credibility. 'Fess up, people. You did actually
try this, right? Be honest.