"JethroUK©" wrote in message
...

"PBalmanno" wrote in message
news:6g7Wg.1133$BC6.249@fed1read01...
| JethroUK©" wrote in message
| ...
| it still seems strage that the IF function doesn't need a false
argument
| but
| does need a true one
|
|
| "PBalmanno" wrote in message
| news:RKVVg.1116$BC6.563@fed1read01...
| | "Bob Phillips" wrote in message
| | ...
| | A1="Bob" will return FALSE then
| |
| | --
| | HTH
| |
| | Bob Phillips
| |
| | (replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)
| |
| | "PBalmanno" wrote in message
| | news:8EOVg.1067$BC6.432@fed1read01...
| | "Niek Otten" wrote in message
| | ...
| | But you can use
| |
| | =A1="Bob"
| |
| | --
| | Kind regards,
| |
| | Niek Otten
| | Microsoft MVP - Excel
| |
| | "JethroUK©" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | IF function
| | |
| | | if you omit the false parameter, the function returns "FALSE"
| | |
| | | =IF(A1="Bob",TRUE)
| | |
| | | so why doesn't it return "TRUE" so you can omit the true
| parameter
| | |
| | | e.g
| | |
| | | =IF(A1="Bob")
| | |
| | | whilst everyone reading this post knows the answer (clue:
it's
| either
| | TRUE
| | | or FALSE) - excel doesn't? - it kicks up syntax error
| | |
| | | Doh!
| | |
| | |
| |
| | You forgot one: =A!<"Bob"
| | A B C D E
| | 1 Bull FALSE =IF(A1="Bob") FALSE TRUE
| | 1 Bob TRUE =IF(A1="Bob") TRUE FALSE
| | Formulas =IF(A1="Bob",TRUE) =IF(A1="Bob") =A1="Bob"
=A!<"Bob"
| |
| |
| |
| | Conversely: =A!<"Bob" will return TRUE / FALSE as well.
| |
| |
|
| I think the point is you don't need to use the IF statement 1) to return
the
| results you want, 2) that is designed on the bias you perceive.
|
|

as i expressed in another post - 'most' of Xl functions can be made
redundant (can be worked around) - that doesn't stop the IF function
having
a fundimental design flaw

It isn't flawed. If it was flawed it wouldn't work. Just because you feel
it should work another way doesn't qualify for being flawed. I see you may
have been looking for an explanation on if the logic was bolean or not and
why the design of the function was as is. All the examples use a bolean 0
or 1 - False or True wether the function is designed to consider False
instead of True or vice versa is irrelevant (although it's design seems to
indicate the predominance of a False outcome, ergo needing a definition for
True condition) and we certainly don't need two functions to do the same
thing. However, the point is if you are really insistent on a function
designed with the predominance of a True outcome (as in nearly all of your
test conditions will default to True) then use a work around (which in
essence is another if function without the if.