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

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

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

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

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

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