Is it odd that a pricing matrix is provided without decimals? For example, a product measuring 23 x 42 shows to be 114 but it's actually supposed to be 11.40. Another measurement is 28 x 48 and according to the matrix would be 696 but should be 69.6.
Why would they do this for any reason (just so I understand why to expect this)
Does Excel have an easy way to add a decimal in one space from the right?
I would just do this manually but there are thousands of products.
I figured out a way using Paste Special.
In my case the number worked out if divided by 10. So, I typed the number 10 in any cell, Edit > Copy that number. Select your numbers you'd like to alter. Right-click the number (making sure they're all still selected) and choose Paste Special. Choose Divide as the option.
That takes a number such as 720 and makes it 72.0 If you need 720 to become 7.20 then type 100 in any cell instead of the 10 we did earlier and voila.
Related
so I am a complete excel and math noob and I want to have a cell in excel which will display the "Pelayo number", which is used in calculating bias in a roulette wheel. You can read more about it here: https://www.roulette-bet.com/2015/06/the-roulette-bias-winning-method.html
enter image description here
Let me explain briefly what I want. As you can see on the image there are two columns, in one there are the numbers on a roulette wheel and and in the second one there is the frequency of each number. On top you see number of spins (852). The number on the bottom (23,02.....) is the expected frequency of each number. The table is dynamic, constantly evolving as I enter new data.
Now I want a cell to display the total number of positives. Which is calculated like this:
If there have been 300 spins, each numbers has to have been spun 300/36 = 8.33 in order to be breaking even. This means those which have been spun 8 times are losing a little, and those which have showed 9 times are winning something. If a number has appeared 14 times it is clear it has 14-8.33 = 5.67 which we will express in an abbreviated form like +5. Let’s suppose the exact same situation has occurred for 6 other numbers also, they all will make a total sum of 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67 + 5.67+ 5.67 = 39.69. as no other number has been spun over 9 times, then we say the amount of total positives at this table at 300 spins is +39.
TLDR So ideally something like: Select all the numbers from (G6:G42) which are bigger than value in (G50) and then substract them one after another from the expected frequency (G50) and then add this all up.
I tried to solve it but just couldnt find a tutorial anywhere
I'll break this down for you, and show you a few helpful Excel concepts along the way.
Especially if you are a beginner, I'd recommend using a helper column. Helper columns are great ways to break down complicated functions into smaller, more manageable parts.
In H6, write =IF(G6>G$50,G6,0). That if statement will set us up for our sum, with either the value in G6 or a 0. The $ will be cleared up in a moment.
Then, hover your mouse over that cell, and a little square box will appear in the lower right corner of H6. Grab that tiny box, and drag it down to H42. This fills in the formula, adjusting all of the numbers relatively as you go. Note that the 50 stayed constant, however - that's what the $ did!
H6 is now your helper column. It doesn't find your answer, but it gets an important, intermediary step done.
Finally, wherever you'd like your answer, write =SUM(G6:G42), and you should be well on your way.
=SUMIF(G6:G42,">"&G50,G6:G42)-COUNTIF(G6:G42,">"&G50)*G50
It sums values that are over in G50 then distracts G50 value as much times as there were values to sum up to.
For example in case G50 is 23.02 and you have values 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
It would calculate like (22+23+24+25)-4*23.02
Regarding Excel 2007 (though it may pertain to other versions):
I want to apply Excel Data Validation to manually inputted data. In this particular case, the input is of the form NN.nnnnh, where the digit "h" is a "half-digit". That is, it can either be 0 or 5.
The spread-sheet converts land-surveying that is manually entered in the form of Feet, Inches, and 16ths of an inch, into decimal feet
The function of the half-digit is to allow the optional higher-precision to 1/32nd of an inch.
For example:
43.0913 is the raw entry for 43 feet, nine inches, and 13/16ths of an inch.
Now, by adding the half-digit in the fifth decimal place, a precision of 1/32" can be expressed.
For example:
27.08135 is the manual entry for 27 feet, 08 inches, and (13.5/16=) 27/32nds of an inch.
The raw input NN.nnnnh is decomposed and converted into feet as a decimal number, using Excel TRUNC function. This manner of conversion is analogous to the more familiar conversion of angles entered as D˚M'S", into DD.dddddd).
I want to assure that the 5th decimal place, manually entered, is ONLY Zero or 5.
I can separately apply logical tests to determine if the fifth-decimal entry is Zero, or 5.
But, when I combine those separate logical tests using the =IF(OR( structure, I get inconsistent results IFF the manually-entered data has an integer value (i.e., in the NN.nnnnh format, any length of just one foot or greater, manually entered as >= 1.00000). Unless I undertake the surveying of table-top architectural scale models, this has serious limitations !!!
I have attached an example spreadsheet to illustrate the formulae used and the results. If anybody can shed some light on this, it would be appreciated.
(If there is a way to simply Attach a *.xlsx example....please let me know. I had intended to do this, and then discovered that it seems to be impossible!)
Use MROUND to test if the number is the same:
=A1=MROUND(A1,0.00005)
I'm attempting to display exactly the first 100 powers of 2 (e.g. 1,2,4,8,16...) in a column in Excel. Unfortunately, once I get up to about 2 raised to the 50th, I'm hit by the Excel limitation of only working with 15 digits - hence, when Excel multiplies 2^49 * 2 I get the wrong answer:
562949953421312.00 * 2 != 1125899906842620.00
I have tried the Excel option "Set Precision as Displayed", but this doesn't seem to help. I suppose it makes sense that there needs to be an upper numeric limit somewhere, but it seems that there should be a way of multiplying large numeric strings, no?
562949953421312 * 2 == 1125899906842624
Excel cannot accurately represent numbers that do not fit into 64 bits. To represent numbers beyond 2^64 (you want to reach 2^100) would require more bits, therefore Excel will lose precision with such numbers.
This is an internal limitation of excel, and you should use a different tool to get exact results. Read the corresponding knowledge base article for more details - there is even a wikipedia page to describe the issues.
Try to wrap the number in the IFERROR function
=IFERROR("1201305162827683","1201305162827683")
Background: I have been officiating our local jogging events for about ten years now. I am responsible for handling the data of the participants (name, sporting club, bib number) split into their categories (age bracket+gender, distance). The main task is collecting their times, and processing that data (sorting the runners within their category etc). I can handle this with Excel mostly fine.
Problem: What is the ideal time format for entering the race times of the participants? The times are either in the format mm:ss or (for slower runners and/or longer distances) h:mm:ss. Excel doesn't seem to have a built-in format where the hours field is optional. For optimizing my workflow ideally I would like to have a cell format such that the input
47:12 is to be interpreted as 47 minutes and 12 seconds, and the input 1:09:38 is to be interpreted as 1hr 9 minutes and 38 seconds. However, Excel, with the best fitting cell format that I found, will insist that the input 47:12 means 47 hours and 12 minutes. For times exceeding 1 hour I would input 1:03:00 if I meant that the seconds field is to be left with value zero.
How to make Excel realize that when the format can handle up to three numbers as inputs, it would, when given only two numbers, move them towards the end?
Thinking: I "can" key in 47 minutes and 12 seconds as 0:47:12 all right. But because most of the times are under 1 hour, that is partly wasted effort. Also, using such a format the data is displayed on the screen together with that superfluous 0:. What's worse (IIRC) those leading zeros
also appear in the printed versions, which is strange (insulting even) in a shorter distance for junior participants.
My hack: I enter the times as general numbers in the mm,ss format (in these parts a comma serves as a decimal separator). Excel can sort those as numbers just fine. I then duplicate the data of that sorted column to another "printable" version (formatted as text), where the data is just copied, but I correct the times exceeding 60 minutes by hand. This works just fine as long as I'm not in a hurry (our event is not exactly Boston Marathon, say, less than 200 participants), and remember to hide the column that is not supposed to be printed. This is kludgy, and there have been accidents, when other officials have been rushing me to get the results printed.
I managed to create a format where the hour-field is optional. It works with a conditional format. First you format your cells as standard, so you get the times as comma-values. After that you create a conditional format for these cells, which has two rules:
if cellvalue > 0.04166667 format hh:mm:ss
if cellvalue < 0.04166666 format mm:ss
Result:
47:12
01:09:38
01:00:00
So you get what you really want and you can use the original values for sorting and so on.
EDIT:
For the input you need four additional columns. You enter the times as you want, e.g. 47:12 and 1:09:38. In the next three columns you split these values in hour, minute and second, whereby the interpretation limit is 3 hours (03:00), which is 0.125.
So, these are the formulas for the split columns (your input is in B1):
Hours: =IF(B1>0.125,0,HOUR(B1))
Minutes: =IF(B1>0.125,INT(B1)*24+HOUR(B1),MINUTE(B1))
Seconds: =IF(B1>0.125,MINUTE(B1),SECOND(B1))
And finally, you put all values togehter in the forth column:
=TIME(C1,D1,E1)
and use the conditional format above.
If you will be entering your data as
`mmm,ss`
where the comma is the decimal point, then you can convert it to "Excel Time" with the simple formula:
=DOLLARDE(A1,60)/1440
Format the result as you wish.
If you want everything displayed as h:mm:ss then use that as your custom format (Format > Cells > Number > Custom Type:...)
If you want h to be displayed only with values of 60 minutes or greater, then use
[<0.0416666666666667]mm:ss;h:mm:ss
for your cell's custom format.
Beware that seconds must be entered with two digits always. In other words
6,2 will translate to 6 min 20 sec.
6,02 will translate to 6 min 2 sec
I really like IQV's answer above, but as pointed out in the comment section, the leading zero will be required for the data entry side. If for whatever reason this is not acceptable you can use the following ugly formula to convert your time entered in your usual method of mm,ss to hh:mm:ss with the hh: being displayed as required. Unfortunately it converts the whole thing to text which means you can no longer perform math operations on it.
=IF(FIND(".",MOD(D2,60)&".")=2,"0","")&MOD(D2,60)
and since you use , as your decimal separator the formula would become:
IF(FIND(",",MOD(D2,60)&",")=2,"0","")&MOD(D2,60)
If you use ; as your list separator then your formula becomes
IF(FIND(",";MOD(D2;60)&",")=2;"0";"")&MOD(D2;60)
There are probably some cleaner formulas, but that will get you started. Just replace D2 with the location where your time is stored.
Again I still prefer IQV's answer as you can do much more with the time information when its stored as a number and not text.
Option 2
lets say you change your data storage method to hhmm,ss in cell D6. you could rip apart the information and reassemble it in a display friendly version as follows.
=IF(FIND(".",D6)<=3,LEFT(D6,2)&":"&RIGHT(D6,LEN(D6)-FIND(".",D6)),LEFT(D6,FIND(".",D6)-3)&":"&MID(D6,FIND(".",D6)-2,2)&":"&RIGHT(D6,LEN(D6)-FIND(".",D6)))
you will need to substitute your list separator for the , and then substitute a coma for the decimal.
So I'm creating a spreadsheet that determines the cost of materials and the number of each material needed in order to complete a desire project using input from myself. Right now the desired project is a wall that is 250x9 that requires replace all the 4x8 sheets of wood with OSB and install Vinyl Siding. The issue I'm running into is I cannot get it to always round up. By that I mean even if the value is 1.1 it should round up. In this specific case I am buying nails for my nail gun in a box of 2,000 and each sheet of OSB will have 32 nails in it. If 250x9 area requires 70.3125 sheets of OSB it means I still have to buy 71 sheets of OSB. If that OSB is 71 sheets then it require that I have 2272 Nails then the result is I need 1.125 Boxes of nails. However I can't seem to get it to show this as 2 boxes because again I still need to purchase more than one box to complete the project. So with that being said if I take the number of OSB needed 70.3125 and I place it in a formula with a roundup function it still rounds down (gives me a headache that there is a roundup and a rounddown function and it will still round down on me. Perhaps it is the way I am using it in the formula that is incorrect, I'm not sure. So let me translate the formula's used and you can let me know if I'm doing something wrong or if there is a function or set of functions that I can use to solve this issue.
=SUM(((B30*C30)+(B35*C35)+(E30*F30)+(H30*I30))/(E9*G9))
This says that if I added Wall1 L*W with Wall2 L*W with Wall3 L*W with Wall4 L*W and divide it by OSB H*W I get the number of sheets needed. Which in this case is 2250/32 basically. But its programmed in a manner that I can input the information for individual walls to different area's and get it to spit out the total SqFt for each wall and give an individual breakdown per wall of material needed with cost associated per sq ft of material bleh bleh bleh. The point is I take the result that is the 70.3125 and I move it to a different workbook and I say "Sheets OSB Needed" and in that box I have
=ROUNDUP(Sheet1!A9,1)
Whereas I'm asking it to roundup A9 which is the result of the above formula by intervals of 1. But the output is still 70 instead of 71. and much the same case with the nails needed. Which can be calculated in a few different manners but regardless the amount of nails needed divided by 2000 would output the decimal answer which yields a value of less than 1.5 and it too provides me with a value of 1 instead of 2 with much the same formula. I could achieve my desired result I suppose with Trunc and Mod functions collaborating using multiple cells to output the different portions of the data. But is there a way to do this that doesn't involve so many cells being used up?
C7
=Trunc(A9)
Removes Decimal from 70.3125
C8
=MOD(A9)
Outputs decimals from 70.3125
C9
=IF(C8<1,"1",C8)
If Decimals are < a whole number make it a whole number
C3
=SUM(C7+C9)
Add the whole number to the Trunc Number to get value desired.
Which I'm already seeing an issue with this if there is no decimals in the sheets needed then wouldn't it always add one because the decimal place would be 0? How can I handle this issue? Isn't there an easier way to do this or a way to code it so that its all nested into one calculation or at least mostly all into one calculation without making a circular reference of some sort?
You need to change the second parameter to a 0 ROUNDUP(70.3125, 1) is 70.3 the 3 must be getting dropped elsewhere or lost in formatting.
ROUNDUP(70.3125, 0) will give 71.
The second parameter of round up is the decimal place. So to round to integers it should be 0 not 1