Re: All hail Neo!
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:08:13 GMT
"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I just fired up Excel 2003. I entered two columns of numbers, and
> > > left one cell empty in each column. Then I set the formula for the
> > > third column to be col1 + col2. Then I got the sum of the first two
> > > column. It behaved exactly as I propose: missing values were
> > > ignored, both on the vertical sum and on the horizontal sum.
> > > This preserves the SUM(A) + SUM(B) = SUM(A+B) property
> > > as well.
> > Repeat the experiment with avg. The results are even more interesting
> > sum.
> I was thinking about this just before you suggested it, and it occurred
> to me that the average of an empty set should produce the same
> result as a divide by zero. Sure enough, if you ask excel what the
> average of three empty cells is, it says "#DIV/0!".
> Using average in the grid does *not* have the property
> (AVG(A) + AVG(B)) / 2 = AVG(A+B). That property
> won't hold unless A and B have the same cardinality,
> which they won't (necessarily) if A or B is allowed to
> be empty. We can generalize this to say that
> a fold of a fold won't necessarily return the same
> results as a flattened fold.
I was thinking of something somewhat less subtle. If the average function
is asked to compute the average of a column of four values and one null,
there are three ways it could be implemented:
I think we can all agree that alternative C is not useful. Some people
prefer A. I prefer B.
Both Excel and SQL, to my knowledge, implement choice B. That's what I was referring to, when I suggested doing the experiment with avg. Received on Thu Apr 27 2006 - 14:08:13 CEST
I think we can all agree that alternative C is not useful. Some people prefer A. I prefer B.