Re: I don´t view the value right after six decimal place in Excel

The Windows calculator is documented to give at least 32 decimal digit
accuracy--probably IEEE quadruple precision, which is far more than the IEEE
standard double precision used by Excel and most other numeric software.

The 16th digit in 2179,0089519999972104171 is a 7, which rounds up to give
2179,00895100000 to 15 digits, but Excel does not display trailing 0's
beyond the decimal point, unless explicitly formatted to do so.

Jerry

"Claudio" wrote:

|I don´t understand. In the Windows Calculator the result is presented
2179,0089519999972104171 and if in the Excel's precision is
15 significant figures, but the number 2179.008952 dont´t have 15 digits.

Why in Excel is the number 2179.00895199999 nearest to the number
2179.00895200000.
Each digit number would not be one? Even that was 15 digits (15 numbers)
would have to show up 2179.0089519999 considering the point

"David Biddulph" wrote:

What calculation is giving you 2137.63308348257 ?
And where do you get 2137.6330834825731 ?
Doesn't 1.0198424825731 * 2136.613241 come to something a lot closer to the
OP's 2179.008952 ?
--
David Biddulph

"Bob I" <birelan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OrFrxw89IHA.4820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Actually Excel produces

2137,63308348257

as opposed to

2137,6330834825731

which is due to the limit of precision available in Excel.

Claudio wrote:

This problem also occurs in Excel 2007.

"Claudio" wrote:


Suppose cell A1 = 1,0198424825731 (thirteen decimal places after comma)
and cell B1 = 2136,613241 (six decimal places after comma) the result is
presented in Excel = 2179,008952 (only six decimal places after comma)
and should be presented the following results = 2179,00895199999.

After a six decimal places is presented 000000 (zeros)

"David Biddulph" wrote:


It's no good just saying vaguely: "... are not correct"
Tell us what formula you used, what numbers were the inputs to that
formula, what answer you got, and what answer you expected.
--
David Biddulph

"Claudio" <Claudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A28E673E-E717-45B0-8BE7-ED8EF1245ACA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Even making calculations only by the Excel submitted figures are not
correct
from the 6 decimal place, and I updated with Office (last SP), which
can be?

Other e-mail for contact: claudiop@xxxxxxxxxx







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rounding errors
    ... Take for example 10 random single digit numbers. ... if you take a set of large precision random numbers between ... The rounding to 2 digits will restore the full count 500,500. ... But it is not the _roundeing_ that is wrong, it is the truncation to ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Another question about big floating point
    ... I've been programming that bignum floating point thing I've talked ... We just lose a whole 32-bit dword "digit" from the number's ... effectively only 32 bits of precision)? ... annoyances of the hex float historically used by S/ ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: reformat cells for date
    ... I've had trouble with this techique before, but I closed excel and reopened it ... David Biddulph wrote: ... If I used 4 digit years, ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)
  • range coder
    ... i'm fiddling around to implement a range coder as a backend to an acb ... too much precision to enable decoding. ... of the low register (he uses bit 31 to handle the underflow digit ... if the first digit (when i say digit, ...
    (comp.compression)
  • Re: long double in gcc implementations
    ... some of Mr. Navia's built-in math functions, ... char Pause; ... the full 100 digit precision claimed by qfloat. ...
    (comp.lang.c)