Circular?
 

I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I turned that off, then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like iterative approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve their way' through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets, the cell that is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace dependents. Isn't that impossible?

Thanks for any help.
Dean

Circular?
 

I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference, there's a
circular reference.

But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe Stephen Bullen's
utility will help:

http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
Look for FindCirc.zip

Dean wrote:

I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I turned that off,
then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like iterative
approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve their way'
through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets, the cell that
is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace dependents.
Isn't that impossible?

Thanks for any help.
Dean

--

Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of cell C,
where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where A
depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which depends back
on A.

So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect it to
cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as circular,
would you?

In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes away.

Thanks!
D



DO

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference, there's a
circular reference.

But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe Stephen
Bullen's
utility will help:

http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
Look for FindCirc.zip

Dean wrote:

I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I turned that
off,
then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like iterative
approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve their
way'
through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets, the cell
that
is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace dependents.
Isn't that impossible?

Thanks for any help.
Dean

--

Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

If you change A1 to a number and the circular reference warning goes away, then
look at the cells that are referred to in A1 (and the references in those
references in those references).

It sure sounds like a circular reference to me.

Dean wrote:

It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of cell C,
where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where A
depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which depends back
on A.

So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect it to
cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as circular,
would you?

In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes away.

Thanks!
D

DO

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference, there's a
circular reference.

But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe Stephen
Bullen's
utility will help:

http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
Look for FindCirc.zip

Dean wrote:

I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I turned that
off,
then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like iterative
approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve their
way'
through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets, the cell
that
is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace dependents.
Isn't that impossible?

Thanks for any help.
Dean

--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

Hi Dave,

I'm a little confused. The trace circular tells me exactly the chain, it identifies cell A, which depends on B .... D, which depends on E, which depends on cell A, an obvious circular loop. Obviously, if I break the chain anywhere between A and E, the circularity goes away, including that of "Joe" (defined later).

The cell that I call C is in the middle of that chain and the cell (let's call it "Joe") on another worksheet that shows as circular was the only remaining issue. I guess Joe is, at best, only second generation circular, in that it depends on a cell (cell C) that is in the chain. But what confuses me most is that this Joe shows no dependents and I have no doubt that is true, since it is on a results summary exhibit, not to mention that nothing changes at all if I delete Joe.

Is the answer that EXCEL gets a little confused in the face of circularity, sort of a guilt by association?

Thanks!
Dean

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message ...
If you change A1 to a number and the circular reference warning goes away, then
look at the cells that are referred to in A1 (and the references in those
references in those references).

It sure sounds like a circular reference to me.

Dean wrote:

It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of cell C,
where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where A
depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which depends back
on A.

So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect it to
cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as circular,
would you?

In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes away.

Thanks!
D

DO

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference, there's a
circular reference.

But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe Stephen
Bullen's
utility will help:

http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
Look for FindCirc.zip

Dean wrote:

I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I turned that
off,
then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like iterative
approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve their
way'
through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets, the cell
that
is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace dependents.
Isn't that impossible?

Thanks for any help.
Dean

--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

First, this is a plain text newsgroups. Most people don't like HTML posts (and
binary attachments).

I've never seen excel confused about circular references. But I have seen me
struggle to find them.

(I'd keep looking <bg.)


Dean wrote:

Hi Dave,

I'm a little confused. The trace circular tells me exactly the chain, it
identifies cell A, which depends on B .... D, which depends on E, which
depends on cell A, an obvious circular loop. Obviously, if I break the chain
anywhere between A and E, the circularity goes away, including that of "Joe"
(defined later).

The cell that I call C is in the middle of that chain and the cell (let's
call it "Joe") on another worksheet that shows as circular was the only
remaining issue. I guess Joe is, at best, only second generation circular, in
that it depends on a cell (cell C) that is in the chain. But what confuses me
most is that this Joe shows no dependents and I have no doubt that is true,
since it is on a results summary exhibit, not to mention that nothing changes
at all if I delete Joe.

Is the answer that EXCEL gets a little confused in the face of circularity,
sort of a guilt by association?

Thanks!
Dean

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
If you change A1 to a number and the circular reference warning goes away,
then
look at the cells that are referred to in A1 (and the references in those
references in those references).

It sure sounds like a circular reference to me.

Dean wrote:

It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of cell C,
where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where A
depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which depends
back
on A.

So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect it to
cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as circular,
would you?

In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes away.

Thanks!
D

DO

"Dave Peterson" wrote in message
...
I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference, there's a
circular reference.

But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe Stephen
Bullen's
utility will help:

http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
Look for FindCirc.zip

Dean wrote:

I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I turned that
off,
then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like iterative
approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve their
way'
through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets, the
cell
that
is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace
dependents.
Isn't that impossible?

Thanks for any help.
Dean

--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

Isn't it possible the circular reference is wholly contained within the cell
formula?

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Dave Peterson" wrote:
| First, this is a plain text newsgroups. Most people don't like HTML posts
(and
| binary attachments).
|
| I've never seen excel confused about circular references. But I have seen
me
| struggle to find them.
|
| (I'd keep looking <bg.)
|
|
| Dean wrote:
|
| Hi Dave,
|
| I'm a little confused. The trace circular tells me exactly the chain,
it
| identifies cell A, which depends on B .... D, which depends on E, which
| depends on cell A, an obvious circular loop. Obviously, if I break the
chain
| anywhere between A and E, the circularity goes away, including that of
"Joe"
| (defined later).
|
| The cell that I call C is in the middle of that chain and the cell
(let's
| call it "Joe") on another worksheet that shows as circular was the only
| remaining issue. I guess Joe is, at best, only second generation
circular, in
| that it depends on a cell (cell C) that is in the chain. But what
confuses me
| most is that this Joe shows no dependents and I have no doubt that is
true,
| since it is on a results summary exhibit, not to mention that nothing
changes
| at all if I delete Joe.
|
| Is the answer that EXCEL gets a little confused in the face of
circularity,
| sort of a guilt by association?
|
| Thanks!
| Dean
|
| "Dave Peterson" wrote in message
| ...
| If you change A1 to a number and the circular reference warning goes
away,
| then
| look at the cells that are referred to in A1 (and the references in
those
| references in those references).
|
| It sure sounds like a circular reference to me.
|
| Dean wrote:
|
| It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of
cell C,
| where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where
A
| depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which
depends
| back
| on A.
|
| So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect
it to
| cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as
circular,
| would you?
|
| In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes
away.
|
| Thanks!
| D
|
| DO
|
| "Dave Peterson" wrote in message
| ...
| I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference,
there's a
| circular reference.
|
| But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe
Stephen
| Bullen's
| utility will help:
|
| http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
| Look for FindCirc.zip
|
| Dean wrote:
|
| I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I
turned that
| off,
| then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like
iterative
| approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve
their
| way'
| through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets,
the
| cell
| that
| is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace
| dependents.
| Isn't that impossible?
|
| Thanks for any help.
| Dean
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

Like putting
=A1
in A1

or
=a1+b1+a1+c1
in A1

But I would think/hope that this would be easier to find <vbg.


Dave Patrick wrote:

Isn't it possible the circular reference is wholly contained within the cell
formula?

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Dave Peterson" wrote:
| First, this is a plain text newsgroups. Most people don't like HTML posts
(and
| binary attachments).
|
| I've never seen excel confused about circular references. But I have seen
me
| struggle to find them.
|
| (I'd keep looking <bg.)
|
|
| Dean wrote:
|
| Hi Dave,
|
| I'm a little confused. The trace circular tells me exactly the chain,
it
| identifies cell A, which depends on B .... D, which depends on E, which
| depends on cell A, an obvious circular loop. Obviously, if I break the
chain
| anywhere between A and E, the circularity goes away, including that of
"Joe"
| (defined later).
|
| The cell that I call C is in the middle of that chain and the cell
(let's
| call it "Joe") on another worksheet that shows as circular was the only
| remaining issue. I guess Joe is, at best, only second generation
circular, in
| that it depends on a cell (cell C) that is in the chain. But what
confuses me
| most is that this Joe shows no dependents and I have no doubt that is
true,
| since it is on a results summary exhibit, not to mention that nothing
changes
| at all if I delete Joe.
|
| Is the answer that EXCEL gets a little confused in the face of
circularity,
| sort of a guilt by association?
|
| Thanks!
| Dean
|
| "Dave Peterson" wrote in message
| ...
| If you change A1 to a number and the circular reference warning goes
away,
| then
| look at the cells that are referred to in A1 (and the references in
those
| references in those references).
|
| It sure sounds like a circular reference to me.
|
| Dean wrote:
|
| It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of
cell C,
| where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where
A
| depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which
depends
| back
| on A.
|
| So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect
it to
| cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as
circular,
| would you?
|
| In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes
away.
|
| Thanks!
| D
|
| DO
|
| "Dave Peterson" wrote in message
| ...
| I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference,
there's a
| circular reference.
|
| But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe
Stephen
| Bullen's
| utility will help:
|
| http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
| Look for FindCirc.zip
|
| Dean wrote:
|
| I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I
turned that
| off,
| then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like
iterative
| approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve
their
| way'
| through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets,
the
| cell
| that
| is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace
| dependents.
| Isn't that impossible?
|
| Thanks for any help.
| Dean
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson

--

Dave Peterson

Circular?
 

Yes, exactly.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Dave Peterson" wrote:
| Like putting
| =A1
| in A1
|
| or
| =a1+b1+a1+c1
| in A1
|
| But I would think/hope that this would be easier to find <vbg.