Excel is not able to make computations using the MOD function of numbers as
large as 10 billion. So for example if we type in
=MOD(10000000000,10)
We get a result of
#NUM!
This is something I can do in my head, or my calculator, it is disappointing
that excel can't handle it. This is a suggestion and not a bug, because the
MOD function works fine, its just that someone didnt have the foresight to
allow it to work for large values. I am guessing that the solution to this
will only require changing a single line of code.

"Gold Fish" <Gold wrote...
Excel is not able to make computations using the MOD function of numbers as
large as 10 billion. So for example if we type in
=MOD(10000000000,10)
We get a result of
#NUM!
....

Old news.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;119083

This KB article implies by omission that this has been fixed in Excel 2003,
but if so there ain't gonna be a fix for older versions.

Hi
send an email to


but fortunately (as also mentioned in the help) there's a workaround
using INT

--
Regards
Frank Kabel
Frankfurt, Germany

"Gold Fish" <Gold schrieb im
Newsbeitrag ...
Excel is not able to make computations using the MOD function of
numbers as
large as 10 billion. So for example if we type in
=MOD(10000000000,10)
We get a result of
#NUM!
This is something I can do in my head, or my calculator, it is
disappointing
that excel can't handle it. This is a suggestion and not a bug,
because the
MOD function works fine, its just that someone didnt have the
foresight to
allow it to work for large values. I am guessing that the solution
to this
will only require changing a single line of code.

"Harlan Grove" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
"Gold Fish" <Gold wrote...
Excel is not able to make computations using the MOD function of
numbers as
large as 10 billion. So for example if we type in
=MOD(10000000000,10)
We get a result of
#NUM!
...

Old news.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;119083

This KB article implies by omission that this has been fixed in Excel
2003,
but if so there ain't gonna be a fix for older versions.

Hi Harlan
I guess they just forgot to update the KB article :-)
So Excel 2003 still has this bug (at least my German version). Not sure
what the max. allowed number in previous versions is so I couldn't test
if they at least extended the value range (but I doubt it)

Frank

"Frank Kabel" wrote...
....
I guess they just forgot to update the KB article :-)
So Excel 2003 still has this bug (at least my German version). Not sure
what the max. allowed number in previous versions is so I couldn't test
if they at least extended the value range (but I doubt it)

This proves that at least on Windows machines which by now all have
IEEE-compliant hardware FPUs that Excel's developers are too pig-headed to
use the hardware opcodes. See

http://google.com/groups?selm=eoRsb....wsrange r.com

I guess they just forgot to update the KB article :-)
So Excel 2003 still has this bug (at least my German version). Not
sure
what the max. allowed number in previous versions is so I couldn't
test
if they at least extended the value range (but I doubt it)

This proves that at least on Windows machines which by now all have
IEEE-compliant hardware FPUs that Excel's developers are too
pig-headed to
use the hardware opcodes. See


http://google.com/groups?selm=eoRsb....newsrange r.c
om

Hi Harlan
thanks for the link. And just to confirm. The 2^27 quotient limit is
still true for Excel 2003. So no change at all is respect to previous
Excel versions.

Frank