Niklas Nebel wrote:
They don't "accept" a value of -0.999 instead of 1, they just
calculated something different (autocorrelation).
Indeed, that was autocorrelation. My fault. But the test case is still a
beautiful one for CORRELATION. See also my other 2 test cases. Calc
fails quite badly and this should be fixed by 2.05!!! IF the
autocorrelation should be -0.999, then the simpler correlation between x
and x+10 should be at least as accurate, which was definitely not the
case. (By the way, does OOo have an autocorrelation function; I did not
find one.)
I performed the tests in gnumeric, too, and it seems gnumeric is
accurate. (Well, be aware that if you open the .ods files, it would NOT
recalculate the formulas.)
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. A single look at the
source would show you how CORREL is implemented using sums and square
sums, which limits the values for which it works. There's no need for
more example guesswork.
Mind if I ask, in which file is the CORREL function defined?
Tests are still useful to see where the algorithm fails (and
purportedly, the new algorithm should be correct). Extensive test cases
are always welcome.
I also suggest that one of the developers sits down for half an hour and
writes a TEXT file containing:
- statistical function name
- source file where it is defined
- it would be of great help for others not knowing the OOo source code
well, where to look for
Kind regards,
Leonard Mada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
