+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

sum not equating to parts

  1. #1
    Forum Contributor
    Join Date
    11-22-2006
    MS-Off Ver
    2010
    Posts
    201

    sum not equating to parts

    Hi everyone, i am having difficulty in trying to understand the following:
    File attached is a screen shot of my spreadsheet.

    I cant get the sum of J2:J6 to equate to J7. in the example enclosed the sum of the individual values was 41.7 while the sum based on row 7 calculates as 43.23. I think it has something to do with the proportions.
    You see that row 2 is 18% of the total while the other rows are 21%. Should I be applying a weighting somewhere ?

    Thanks for your help
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Valued Forum Contributor
    Join Date
    02-09-2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    MS-Off Ver
    Office 2016
    Posts
    1,077
    It would be much easier to identify the problem if you could zip and attach a copy of your Excel file.
    Trish in Oz
    -------------
    A problem well defined is a puzzle half solved


    If you attach a sample of your workbook it will be easier to find a solution. Remember to remove/replace sensitive data before uploading the file. Look here if you need help with attachments:
    http://www.excelforum.com/faq.php?fa...b3_attachments

  3. #3
    Forum Contributor
    Join Date
    03-13-2005
    Posts
    6,195
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerbelle
    Hi everyone, i am having difficulty in trying to understand the following:
    File attached is a screen shot of my spreadsheet.

    I cant get the sum of J2:J6 to equate to J7. in the example enclosed the sum of the individual values was 41.7 while the sum based on row 7 calculates as 43.23. I think it has something to do with the proportions.
    You see that row 2 is 18% of the total while the other rows are 21%. Should I be applying a weighting somewhere ?

    Thanks for your help
    Hi,

    in your shown row 2 the figure at D2 is 71%, this is correctly 71.42857, the figure at H2 you show as 4%, this should be 3.571429

    When you total such 'discrepancies' (for lack of a better term) via differing methods you can finish with a slight variance in your answers.

    Temporarily set your columns to display some decimal places to show how the error manifests.

    hth
    ---
    Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

  4. #4
    Forum Contributor
    Join Date
    11-22-2006
    MS-Off Ver
    2010
    Posts
    201
    Hi guys, thanks for the reply, here is the zipped file.
    My point is, and I am probably missing something fundamental here, the sum of column J is (ignoring the negative here) 41.70 but the total in J7 is 43.23.
    So when someone reads across the total column they see a potential opportunity of 43.23 but an aggregate of the individual rows will sum to 41.70
    Is it mathematically correct to expect the sum of the inidvidual rows here to add to the sum of the total, or is there something to do with weighting that I have misssed. As you can see from column L practice1 is 18% of the total but the other practices are 21%

    Thanks for any help you can provide.

  5. #5
    Forum Contributor EdMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-23-2006
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    MS-Off Ver
    2003
    Posts
    1,264
    Hi Tinkerbelle

    The problem is in the decimal parts that you can't see - formatting hides decimal places but they are still there and used in subsequent calculation.

    If you use this in col J and copy down

    =ROUND((I2*E2),0)

    It comes out straight

    Ed

  6. #6
    Forum Contributor
    Join Date
    11-22-2006
    MS-Off Ver
    2010
    Posts
    201
    Thanks EdMac, I thought it might have had something to do with the precision. Thanks

  7. #7
    Forum Contributor EdMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-23-2006
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    MS-Off Ver
    2003
    Posts
    1,264
    happy to have helped

    Ed

  8. #8
    Forum Contributor
    Join Date
    11-22-2006
    MS-Off Ver
    2010
    Posts
    201
    Ed, having thought of this again, is the rounding function you suggested merely forcing the precision ? in other words, should be not expect the sum of each part to equal the bottom line exactly ?
    Thanks for your help.

  9. #9
    Forum Contributor EdMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-23-2006
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    MS-Off Ver
    2003
    Posts
    1,264
    Hi Tinkerbelle,

    If you set the format to, say 2 decimal places, the result is displayed as such but the value that is held is still the calculated value to 15 dps, which is the precision to which excel works.

    If you ROUND the value then the value held is rounded to the number of places you specify.

    If you have lots of calculation and then want to re-total parts back into the whole, it is almost impossible to get an exact match, you have to strike a balance between precision and acceptability.

    I've just been back and revisited your sheet and, looking at it again, I am not sure of the logic.

    Col H - does not seem to do anything. Col J - you are getting percentages of various figures but I'm not sure if J7 and J8 should equal each other as you are not comparing like with like.

    Also if you look at Col K, you will see that the sum of the displayed values =102 due to the display rounding although if you expand the displayed values the reason is obvious.

    This is probably as clear as Mud! But without knowing what outcome you are trying to achieve it's difficult to stop rambling on.

    Does this help?

    Ed

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 1