4 ms·

I thought it was kind of well known: don't use Excel for floating point math, statistical analysis, anything moderately involved that would have to be reproduci

• podperson 14y ago
  The errors in question has nothing to do with inherent flaws in Excel (beyond, perhaps, the difficulty of reviewing Excel code). The problems were in decisions made to exclude data, arbitrary "analysis" with no basis in statistics or common sense (19 - IIRC - years of data from England were given the same weight as one year of data from New Zealand), and an egregious formula error that simply ignored several rows of data.
  • mbetter 14y ago
    I would suggest that in a situation like this, "the difficulty of reviewing Excel code" is even overstated. The direct dependencies of any cell are discoverable with trivial effort.
  • tadfisher 14y ago
    To be fair, Excel's concept of a weighted average has no basis in statistics or common sense, as I have seen in a couple of published works. Here's a tip: if your results are reproducible only in Excel, something is terribly wrong.
    • podperson 14y ago
      I don't think they were using Excel's weighted average function in this case but simply averaging filtered figures per country and then averaging the averages. This has no statistical basis, but it's not Excel's fault
  • Toenex 14y ago
    beyond, perhaps, the difficulty of reviewing Excel code This has always been one of my concerns when Excel is used much beyond 'electronic squared paper'. The interwoven data and code nature of the tool makes testing and verification more difficult - certainly not impossible but going against the grain of the tool. Excel is used by a diverse range of people, many of whom have limited software skills and could do with a tool that enforced the right behaviour. Also I think this shows the need for openness when people make such important claims based on data. Particularly in this case where all the data and calculations could easily be zipped up and put on a website.
    • james1071 14y ago
      Agree-the fundamental problem is that formulae are copied from cell to cell. It is so easy to make a mistake on a big spreadsheet. A much better approach would be to write user defined functions.
• achal 14y ago
  From what I can tell, the actual issue in this case was that they simply summed the wrong thing, rather than ran into some floating point error. Also, I haven't gone through the first paper, but that second link just seems to show how they generally conform to IEEE 754, except for three cases (div/0 errors instead of infinity, NaN errors immediately instead of allowing further computations, and [this one is a bit more important] they don't implement denormalized numbers). I'm not sure why that would mean Excel is terrible at floating point math.
• jabbernotty 14y ago
  It is not well known. I'm guessing that what you are saying isn't really the reality, based on what little I know of the oil and gas industry.
  • nandemo 14y ago
    The financial industry uses a lot of Excel too.
    • jeff303 14y ago
      Yeah but usually not as the system of record/origin for any data. Mostly for consuming data from elsewhere, and often in conjunction with various plugins (some of which can allow Excel to act as the "front end" to a production server that actually crunches/stores the numbers).
  • klipt 14y ago
    I don't know if it's still the case, but when I was an undergrad a professor pointed out that Excel's Gaussian tail probabilities disagreed with everything else (Mathematica, Matlab, R, etc.) for large values.
• mbetter 14y ago
  Your citations don't even remotely suggest your conclusion.