Thanks:  0
Likes:  0

# Thread: Can I use variables in a formula?

1. On 2002-03-15 06:05, Anonymous wrote:
On 2002-03-15 03:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:

You could also have posed the question:

Why not =SUM(A:A)?

Well, that's also good enough.

I threw OFFSET in, I guess, to convey the idea of applying functions to dynamically computed ranges.

You said :-
"You could also have posed the question:
Why not =SUM(A:A)?
Well, that's also good enough."

No - I don't think so,

=SUM(A:A) is not the same as =SUM(A2:A65536)
If A1 contains a number, they will not give identical results. The presupposition was/is that A1 holds a label (as it's often the case). If the presupposition holds, they will give identical results.

2. On 2002-03-15 23:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:
On 2002-03-15 06:05, Anonymous wrote:
On 2002-03-15 03:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:

You could also have posed the question:

Why not =SUM(A:A)?

Well, that's also good enough.

I threw OFFSET in, I guess, to convey the idea of applying functions to dynamically computed ranges.

You said :-
"You could also have posed the question:
Why not =SUM(A:A)?
Well, that's also good enough."

No - I don't think so,

=SUM(A:A) is not the same as =SUM(A2:A65536)
If A1 contains a number, they will not give identical results. The presupposition was/is that A1 holds a label (as it's often the case). If the presupposition holds, they will give identical results.

In the real world (as opposed to a classroom), I've found it inadvisable to make any such presumptions without ensuring that the user is made aware of them.

3. On 2002-03-16 00:11, Anonymoss wrote:
On 2002-03-15 23:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:
On 2002-03-15 06:05, Anonymous wrote:
On 2002-03-15 03:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:

You could also have posed the question:

Why not =SUM(A:A)?

Well, that's also good enough.

I threw OFFSET in, I guess, to convey the idea of applying functions to dynamically computed ranges.

You said :-
"You could also have posed the question:
Why not =SUM(A:A)?
Well, that's also good enough."

No - I don't think so,

=SUM(A:A) is not the same as =SUM(A2:A65536)
If A1 contains a number, they will not give identical results. The presupposition was/is that A1 holds a label (as it's often the case). If the presupposition holds, they will give identical results.

In the real world (as opposed to a classroom), I've found it inadvisable to make any such presumptions without ensuring that the user is made aware of them.
I agree, but I'm not excited. Lets change that "presumptions" to a more neutral word "qualifications/preconditions". One of the strengths of human cognition is that it does not qualify, more often than not, the actions it makes us to perform. If it would/should, it would become lost in thought evaluating zillions of preconditions/qualifications.

4. On 2002-03-16 00:53, Aladin Akyurek wrote:
On 2002-03-16 00:11, Anonymoss wrote:
On 2002-03-15 23:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:
On 2002-03-15 06:05, Anonymous wrote:
On 2002-03-15 03:39, Aladin Akyurek wrote:

You could also have posed the question:

Why not =SUM(A:A)?

Well, that's also good enough.

I threw OFFSET in, I guess, to convey the idea of applying functions to dynamically computed ranges.

You said :-
"You could also have posed the question:
Why not =SUM(A:A)?
Well, that's also good enough."

No - I don't think so,

=SUM(A:A) is not the same as =SUM(A2:A65536)
If A1 contains a number, they will not give identical results. The presupposition was/is that A1 holds a label (as it's often the case). If the presupposition holds, they will give identical results.

In the real world (as opposed to a classroom), I've found it inadvisable to make any such presumptions without ensuring that the user is made aware of them.
I agree, but I'm not excited. Lets change that "presumptions" to a more neutral word "qualifications/preconditions". One of the strengths of human cognition is that it does not qualify, more often than not, the actions it makes us to perform. If it would/should, it would become lost in thought evaluating zillions of preconditions/qualifications.

No. Let's not change it - let's leave it as your original word : "presumption".

Anyway, enough of this ********.

You are obviously not a person who is willing to admit that you made an incorrect statement of fact but would rather obfuscate the situation with laughable attempts at philosophical comments.

You will no doubt be pleased to know that my contribution to this exchange has now reached its conclusion.

5. No. Let's not change it - let's leave it as your original word : "presumption".

Anyway, enough of this ********.

You are obviously not a person who is willing to admit that you made an incorrect statement of fact but would rather obfuscate the situation with laughable attempts at philosophical comments.

You will no doubt be pleased to know that my contribution to this exchange has now reached its conclusion.
Hey hey hey Anonymoss,
This is not the usual stile here!
Aladin does not need my protection and at least he is not hiding behind a false name.
BePolite

[ This Message was edited by: BePolite on 2002-03-16 14:14 ]

6. [/quote]

Hey hey hey Anonymoss,
This is not the usual stile here!
Aladin does not need my protection and at least he is not hiding behind a false name.
BePolite

[ This Message was edited by: BePolite on 2002-03-16 14:14 ]
[/quote]

Is that it?
Or do you have any other useless comments to make?

By the way, Anonymoss is my real name but I must say that your name is a rather uncommon one.

## User Tag List

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•