Numbers incorrectly calculates Factorial 30?

I don't know too many spreadsheets that do better than 15 digits accuracy, or any that really need to. If you have a need to do higher mathematics [even arithmetic] I'd suggest using a dedicated math program to do so.

You are dealing with a digital computer which is representing decimal numbers using floating point numerical representation. Double precision floating point has a the ability to represent about 16 decimal digits. This is not a Numbers thing, it computers. If you need more precision, go to a high end math application that uses quadruple precision, which doubles the number of bits used to represent the number and gives a precision of about 34 decimal digits. That would be just enough to get you the answer to factorial 30 all the way to the very last digit (plus one digit to spare).

I would suggest that Numbers should calculate it correctly, no matter what Excel or Mathematica does.

Here is a great opportunity for Number to demonstrate its putative superiority, yet it falls short.

Apple management should allow the developers to implement solutions to these obvious limitations.

PS: I am just an humble user, out here in the hinterlands, but I understand the situation.

Epictetus1 wrote:
... but I understand the situation.

Apparently not. Numbers does calculate your answer correctly according to the IEEE standard. Tell me, do you truly need more than 15 digits of accuracy for whatever it is you are doing? If so, you need a high-end math application designed for that much precision (and you would already have known that).

Epictetus1 wrote:
I would suggest that Numbers should calculate it correctly, no matter what Excel or Mathematica does.

Here is a great opportunity for Number to demonstrate its putative superiority, yet it falls short.

Apple management should allow the developers to implement solutions to these obvious limitations.

PS: I am just an humble user, out here in the hinterlands, but I understand the situation.

In fact, you didn't understand !

A spreadsheet is not a scientific calculator.
It's designed for an other range of needs.
This range is covered by the IEEE 754-2008 Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic.

If you really want to understand what you are writing about, it would be useful to search for "IEEE 754" in Google.

Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE lundi 20 juillet 2009 11:25:51)

A moot point, but I'd appreciate knowing under what circumstances you'd use such accuracy. The farthest stars are around 77720000000000000000000 miles away, and you want a million more times significance than that?

AlbertEinstein wrote:
A moot point, but I'd appreciate knowing under what circumstances you'd use such accuracy. The farthest stars are around 77720000000000000000000 miles away, and you want a million more times significance than that?

Why are you asking that to me? It's Epictetus1, not me which was asking for a higher accuracy.

I explained that the application is not designed for such an accuracy, no less, no more !

Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE mardi 21 juillet 2009 13:08:21)

Yvan: "Why are you asking that to me?"

I wasn't, and don't know why you would think so. As a beginner in this forum, I have to yet get used to the formalities involved. Every other forum I've attended over a long span of time now usually indicates the author of a message to which one is replying. This one apparently does not, unless I'm missing something ... it happens.

If you read my reply more carefully, you'd see that no-one in particular was mentioned, and that the "moot point" was my own ...the one I was about to make. The intent was a reply to purpose of the OP, and to the physical reason for such accuracy, aside from "I can do this and the spreadsheet can't.". A short while ago, a troll absolutely took over a math conference I attend with persistence on a degree of accuracy much smaller even than this, to the distress of all concerned, so I thought it worth a comment as to the purpose. If you couldn't answer that, then you shouldn't.

Message was edited by: AlbertEinstein

AlbertEinstein wrote:
Every other forum I've attended over a long span of time now usually indicates the author of a message to which one is replying. This one apparently does not, unless I'm missing something ... it happens.

Just make sure you are hitting the "reply" button on a message authored by the person you are responding to. Then it is good to hit the "quote" marks so you can get the author's name and quote part of his message to make clear what you are responding to exactly.

AlbertEinstein wrote:
Yvan: "Why are you asking that to me?"

I wasn't, and don't know why you would think so.

Why aren't you reading carefully ?
Your message what clearly stating "in response to Yvan KOENIG".



Next time, _take care of what you do_ and I will not have to send this kind of question !

Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE mardi 21 juillet 2009 15:52:38)

Stop being so arrogant! I am new here, but am far from new with newsgroups and discussion forums, which I may well have been attending since before you were born. As I type this, I still do not see evidence of "in response to" which possibly appears AFTER I am finished, or as a result of the choice of which "reply" is clicked. But I'm very new here, and just getting used to things. I'm also blind in one eye due to a recent accident, so I might not see things as well as I used to. I was simply using this site in the manner I have done with others, but which are clearly designed differently, as I now observe.

You are clearly knowledgeable in the use of the apple computer and with the vagaries of this forum. I am not ...yet. But I guarantee you that I will be! Now, please don't ever think of lecturing me again. I have WAY too many years of experience to tolerate that. If you want to be helpful, then try directing a person in a polite fashion instead of sitting on a high horse and frowning on them. I.E. inform me on how to avoid this terrible error next time ...what to look for. I have personally helped people with thousands of replies over the decades in other forums in which I have gained respect, and don't need this sort of reply myself. You should concentrate on the message and its intent, not on petty problems which are of no real concern. In this case, that was simply to question the original poster on his intent in gaining such accuracy.

Thank you, Tom. That was the response I was hoping for. I still have to see how to mark replies as helpful, or how to include images or files as necessary. It will happen, and is only a matter of time.

David.

Message was edited by: AlbertEinstein

I repeat:
take care of what you do when you respond and you will no longer get the kind of response which you got.

You where responding to myself so, I didn't understood why you asked that to me.

I can't guess that you sent your response to a wrong target !

Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE mardi 21 juillet 2009 17:08:23)

KOENIG Yvan wrote:
I repeat:
take care of what you do when you respond and you will no longer get the kind of response which you got.
Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE mardi 21 juillet 2009 17:08:23)

I repeat: Please take care of HOW you respond and you will not get the kind of response that you got. As you may see, with the help of Tom's kind reply, I've learned a little already. With a degree in math/physics, and having taught them for a few decades as well, I am not used to being spoken to as if I was stupid or incompetent.

Now, I've had enough of this, as it is well off the original topic.

David.

As I am a retired Engineer from "École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées" (and a retired potter) I am really not not impressed by your degree in math/physics 😉

You made an error, and I point that with my own words even if you don't like them.
Who is arrogant?
I use my true last name, not a pretentious pseudo like yours.
Albert Einstein was able to admit errors when he made some. It seems that you aren't 😟

Yvan KOENIG (from FRANCE mardi 21 juillet 2009 18:19:00)