tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post5407219550861930710..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Multiply and Replenish . . . Your SpreadsheetJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31198909952537637972007-10-09T12:12:00.000-05:002007-10-09T12:12:00.000-05:00Happy to be wrong on this one! I'll admit that the...Happy to be wrong on this one! I'll admit that the 65535 struck me as significant, as 65535 is 1111111111111111 in binary or FFFF in hexadecimal.<BR/><BR/>Having read the explanation, I'm glad I was incorrect. And Bookslinger, I like the quote. :)Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04486708864547561311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14082694225152558832007-09-29T16:24:00.000-05:002007-09-29T16:24:00.000-05:00To be honest I would have suspected an easter egg ...To be honest I would have suspected an easter egg as well, but Bookslinger was right on this one.<BR/><BR/>http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2007/09/25/calculation-issue-update.aspx<BR/><BR/>If it's any comfort, the bug only affected the display of the cell, not the value stored in it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-40609672367640601872007-09-29T16:06:00.000-05:002007-09-29T16:06:00.000-05:00Interesting... I use Excel for Mac and I 850*77.1 ...Interesting... I use Excel for Mac and I 850*77.1 came out 65535.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-32922448838862803832007-09-29T14:41:00.000-05:002007-09-29T14:41:00.000-05:00Mike, as they say "don't ascribe to malice, what i...Mike, as they say "don't ascribe to malice, what ignorance can explain."<BR/><BR/>I have a sneaking suspicion that it is truely a screw-up, and it's more likely that not all execution paths in the code were tested before release.<BR/><BR/>I'd bet that much code makes special meaning of 2-bytes of all 1's. And somewhere in the execution path the "16 1's" exception was "hit", but wasn't allowed for.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-69830878716009605462007-09-29T11:13:00.000-05:002007-09-29T11:13:00.000-05:00Interesting. This appears to be an easter egg; som...Interesting. This appears to be an easter egg; someone's idea of a joke, figuring that the likelihood of actually entering that particular calculation is pretty small. If you try subtle variations on the calculation, it gives a more correct result:<BR/><BR/>65535 * 1 = 65535<BR/>850 * 77.1 = 100000<BR/>849.9999999 * 77.1 = 65534.99999<BR/>850.00001 * 77.1 = 65535.00077<BR/>850 * 77.0999999 = 65534.99992<BR/><BR/>As a software developer, I know that these sorts of things are easy to bury in code. If a member of the Excel team thought it a clever prank, it's almost impossible to catch until it's too late.vryMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04486708864547561311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88740912553130071802007-09-28T22:57:00.000-05:002007-09-28T22:57:00.000-05:00OK - I deleted the remark in my post that drew a w...OK - I deleted the remark in my post that drew a well deserved groan from an anonymous commenter. (Something about the zip code 65535.)Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20028160167399666392007-09-28T22:46:00.000-05:002007-09-28T22:46:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com