In news:[email protected],
AG <[email protected]> typed:
Twayne wrote:
In news:[email protected],
Don Daugherty <[email protected]> typed:
On 3/3/2010 1:36 PM, AG wrote:
JOE Conner wrote:
On 3/3/2010 10:52 AM, AG wrote:
11.73 + 7 + 15.75 + 24.68 + 17.5 + 21.18 + 20.65 +
17.85 + 19.25 + 23.1 + 12.6 + 10.5 + 23.8
TOOLS -> OPTIONS -> OPENOFFICE.ORG CALC -> CALCULATE ->
Right Panel, do you have PRECISION AS SHOWN checked on
one of the machines? Joe Conner, Poulsbo, WA USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail:
[email protected]
Joe
Cheers for the rapid response. Neither of our machines
had that option enabled. However, even after enabling
the "precision as shown" the error persists on my
partner's version of Calc. Thanks
AG
From my reading of Help, you wouldn't want that option
enabled anyway since it would tend to result in more
roundoff's. I'm thinking that JOE wasn't recommending it
as a cure but as the possible problem.
I know when messing with Floating Point math in about any
program, you can get results similar to the original one
stated here. Excel seems to use double-precision no
matter what you display and usually avoids this issue but
it can still be made to happen even in Excel. I'ts very
easy to duplicate in most development languages too if you
aren't watching your precision. Apparently, and I don't know this for a
fact, Calc only
uses the displayed digits for its math from a couple quick
tests I just did. Somehow it seems to be 4 places of
precision for calculations unless you program it
differently. Personally I haven't encountered such a
problem in Calc, but I think that's because I have a habit
of always using at least two positions more of precision
than is necessary, three if they aren't ridiculous
numbers. There is a diminishing point of no return when
you for instance set pi to be 3.14 or 3.14xx or
3.14xxxxx, and so forth. It's a complex subject for
program authors and one that results in many debates
around some circles about which way to do them. Even my
invoices, which need two decimal places of precision, are
calculated on 5 decimal places, but ... use the standard
currency formatting of only two decimal places. No one
wants a bill for $133.3333. But when I'm multiplying
$5.35 by 10,013 pcs, the differences between that result
and using only two places amounts to a lot of money at the
end of the year over all the invoices. It comes out more
accurate for me and more accurate for the customer too. Dunno if that
makes any sense; it's the best I can do
right now though so I hope it helps someone out.
HTH,
Twayne`
Hi Twayne
Thanks for your thoughts, most of which I think that I
could follow. I take your point about the float and if
this had been replicated on my machine as well, I would say
that you are probably onto something that would bear
further investigation - such as increasing the number of
decimal places. But, with the same list of numbers and the
same programme (albeit a newer version), I could not
replicate the problem ... even though we calibrated the
settings to match across the machines. As I said in my
reply to Harold - we are stumped and I have begun to wonder
if it may be a hardware issue to do with the system clock
(her machine also loses time, which reinforces my
suspicions). Without getting into too much detail, I am
going to have to resurrect an older machine, ensure that it
still works and do an installation and then test it on
there. If I can eradicate the problem on the resurrected
box, then it just means doing the full installation so she
can dual boot and all of the rest of her preferred settings
and write it off as a crap build on her current machine,
but if I can't eradicate the problem ... . But one step at
a time. If the ideas/ suggestions here dry up, then I'll
bite the bullet and see if I can get another machine up and
running and migrate her to that.
Thanks for your ideas.
AG
Ah; I didn't catch the different versions before!
Have you:
-- Tried her speadsheet on your machine?
-- Tried duplicating her problem on your machine but using her version of
OO.o?
-- What are the two versions? I was under the impression they were the
same.
If you duplicate it on your own machine it'd be easier to troubleshoot. With
different versions, you could have anything from compiler diffs to OO.o
diffs in the code.
HTH,
Twayne`
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
