I agree, NORMSDIST is OK. But ZTEST doesn't use it, but
calculates all
itself.
It actually does use gauss() - which I assume is at the heart of
NORMSDIST.
GAUSS()=NORMSDIST+0.5 I think.
Wouldn't it be more natural to calculate a real sigma than a
variance?
I mean
sigma =
Hi all,
David King schrieb:
[..]
Whatever :). Yours is certainly clearer, mine a bit faster.
I've attached a patch with your proposal to the issue.
But both ways would have
fSumSqr - fSum*fSum/rValCount
which might give similar problems like in issue 78250.
Yes - really should
Moving discussion of this issue here, at Regina's request.
Hi Regina
The function ZTEST should depend on NORMSDIST.
Therefore NORMSDIST has to be controlled and improved first.
I'm afraid I disagree pretty whole heartedly :)
NORMSDIST may or may not be more accurate in Excel, but in Calc
it
Hi all,
David King wrote:
Moving discussion of this issue here, at Regina's request.
Hi Regina
The function ZTEST should depend on NORMSDIST.
Therefore NORMSDIST has to be controlled and improved first.
I'm afraid I disagree pretty whole heartedly :)
NORMSDIST may or may not be
I only added the accuracy of the SD-algorithm into the discussion,
because the naive single pass algorithm used inside the ztest routine
may give very wrong results,
I'm sure you are right - but perhaps this should be a separate
issue that can indeed wait for a while?
This separate
Hi David,
David King schrieb:
Moving discussion of this issue here, at Regina's request.
Hi Regina
The function ZTEST should depend on NORMSDIST.
Therefore NORMSDIST has to be controlled and improved first.
I'm afraid I disagree pretty whole heartedly :)
NORMSDIST may or may not be more
