Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Excel 2003. Input in B1:
=MOD(A1*100,10) Input in A1: 622.2 -- The result is something very small but not 0 as it's supposed to be. Input 622.8 and there it comes all right. For some strange reason, it would seem like numbers less than 512 with one decimal - they compute correctly. Interesting still: 655.1 goes wrong and 655.4 goes ok. Remark: if I try with pre-multiplied numbers everything's fine. So if I say: =MOD(A1,10) where A1=65510 it gives clean 0. If I'm wrong somewhere in operator precedence or something, please relieve me of this pain. I have created a ton'of page report and everywhere's this issue. Didn't know where to write to Microsoft bug-report or something. Thank you in advance. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi!
It's rounding issue of the MOD function Try this: =MOD(ROUND(A1*100,0),10) Biff "Marian Megami V" wrote in message ... Excel 2003. Input in B1: =MOD(A1*100,10) Input in A1: 622.2 -- The result is something very small but not 0 as it's supposed to be. Input 622.8 and there it comes all right. For some strange reason, it would seem like numbers less than 512 with one decimal - they compute correctly. Interesting still: 655.1 goes wrong and 655.4 goes ok. Remark: if I try with pre-multiplied numbers everything's fine. So if I say: =MOD(A1,10) where A1=65510 it gives clean 0. If I'm wrong somewhere in operator precedence or something, please relieve me of this pain. I have created a ton'of page report and everywhere's this issue. Didn't know where to write to Microsoft bug-report or something. Thank you in advance. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
There have been issues with this function for years:
http://www.bygsoftware.com/issues/modbug.html -- Andy Wiggins FCCA www.BygSoftware.com Excel, Access and VBA Consultancy - "Marian Megami V" wrote in message ... Excel 2003. Input in B1: =MOD(A1*100,10) Input in A1: 622.2 -- The result is something very small but not 0 as it's supposed to be. Input 622.8 and there it comes all right. For some strange reason, it would seem like numbers less than 512 with one decimal - they compute correctly. Interesting still: 655.1 goes wrong and 655.4 goes ok. Remark: if I try with pre-multiplied numbers everything's fine. So if I say: =MOD(A1,10) where A1=65510 it gives clean 0. If I'm wrong somewhere in operator precedence or something, please relieve me of this pain. I have created a ton'of page report and everywhere's this issue. Didn't know where to write to Microsoft bug-report or something. Thank you in advance. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
MOD is working exactly as it should. The "problem" is that most
floating point numbers (including .2) have no exact binary representation (just as 1/3 has no exact decimal representation). When you have to approximate your inputs, that the output is only approximate should be no surprise. 100 times the binary approximation to 622.2 is 62220.0000000000072759576141834259033203125 .... If x has a fractional part but x*100 is supposed to be an integer, then you need to use =MOD(ROUND(x*100,0),10) to ensure that you get rid of any residues of the original binary approximation to x. Jerry Marian Megami V wrote: Excel 2003. Input in B1: =MOD(A1*100,10) Input in A1: 622.2 -- The result is something very small but not 0 as it's supposed to be. Input 622.8 and there it comes all right. For some strange reason, it would seem like numbers less than 512 with one decimal - they compute correctly. Interesting still: 655.1 goes wrong and 655.4 goes ok. Remark: if I try with pre-multiplied numbers everything's fine. So if I say: =MOD(A1,10) where A1=65510 it gives clean 0. If I'm wrong somewhere in operator precedence or something, please relieve me of this pain. I have created a ton'of page report and everywhere's this issue. Didn't know where to write to Microsoft bug-report or something. Thank you in advance. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jerry W. Lewis" wrote in message
... MOD is working exactly as it should. The "problem" is that most floating point numbers (including .2) have no exact binary representation (just as 1/3 has no exact decimal representation). When you have to approximate your inputs, that the output is only approximate should be no surprise. 100 times the binary approximation to 622.2 is 62220.0000000000072759576141834259033203125 ... If x has a fractional part but x*100 is supposed to be an integer, then you need to use =MOD(ROUND(x*100,0),10) to ensure that you get rid of any residues of the original binary approximation to x. Jerry Or, you can use VatType Currency (only four decimals) or Decimal. They are not affected by floating point bugs. Bruno |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bruno Campanini wrote:
Or, you can use VatType Currency (only four decimals) or Decimal. Clarification: these require use of VBA. Also, note that the VBA Mod operator only works with integers (and rounds floating point inputs to integers before doing the calculation). If the OP had rounded to integers then the worksheet MOD function would have given the expected answer, as I previously noted. They are not affected by floating point bugs. To call this a "bug" stretches the definition of "bug". Is it a "bug" that you cannot write 1/3 exactly as a decimal fraction? If so, a bug in what? The field of mathematics? The paper? The pencil? You for eventually stopping? Decimal data types are not a panacea, they still only offer finite precision, and so merely change the particular numbers where these kind of issues occur. Jerry |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jerry W. Lewis" wrote in message
... [...] They are not affected by floating point bugs. To call this a "bug" stretches the definition of "bug". Is it a "bug" that you cannot write 1/3 exactly as a decimal fraction? No, but there is somwhere a "bug" when adding 100 times 0.01 to 0 I can't get 1. If you don't want to use the word "bug" suggest me what is the proper word. Excited? Don't have too many coffees! Bruno |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bruno Campanini" wrote:
They are not affected by floating point bugs. To call this a "bug" stretches the definition of "bug". Is it a "bug" that you cannot write 1/3 exactly as a decimal fraction? No, but there is somwhere a "bug" when adding 100 times 0.01 to 0 I can't get 1. As I pointed out in my original post to this thread, "most decimal fractions have no exact binary representation" and so must be approximated. The approximation to 0.01 is 0.100000000000000002081668171172168513294309377670 2880859375, so it should not be surprising that when you add 100 values which are each slightly larger than you expected, that the total will also be slightly larger than you expected. Taking account of the intermediate roundings (also covered by the IEEE standard) that will occur, the sum of 100 such approximate values will be 1 + 6.661338147750939242541790008544921875E-16 The Excel formula =(total-1) will return 6.66133814775094E-16 (Excel's documented 15-digit limit) indicating that the arithmetic is working exactly as it should. As I also said in my original post "When you have to approximate your inputs, that the output is only approximate should be no surprise." You can see the same phenomenon in decimal (where it may have more intuition). If you use the VBA Currency data type (4 decimal places) x = CCur(1 / 3) total = x + x + x The value of total will be 0.9999, not 1.0000. Surely you will agree that there is no bug there. If you don't want to use the word "bug" suggest me what is the proper word. I am open to suggestions, but calling correct math based on necessary approximations to inputs a "bug" is rather like complaining that it shouldn't rain. It seems a pointless waste of effort that would be better directed at learning to predict when it will rain and how to protect yourself when it does. If you cannot tolerate slight approximations beyond the 15th significant figure, then you should stick to integer calculations where those approximations can be avoided. If you continue to work with decimal fractions, you should be aware that digits beyond the 15th may not be what you expect, and subtractions (including the MOD function) may remove some or even all of the leading digits that originally prevented you from seeing the approximation. Rounding calculated values to the number of places that you can be sure of, will usually help you avoid surprises. These are issues that have been around as long as computers have been doing finite precision mathematics (long before there was a Microsoft), and are not unique to Excel. Jerry |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
undefined function error when creating xls pivot from mdb qry | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
MROUND function. Getting the following error: #NAME? | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
How can I download and install ERROR FUNCTION in Excel 2003? ERF. | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
Error message when inserting function | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Vlookup & Lookup function error | Excel Worksheet Functions |