Range of Factorial Function

Hi. 229! has 443 digits in it, so it's too big for both the worksheet and
vba. (27! being the max in Vba)
Here's just one workaround:

Function LogFactorial(n) As Double
Dim ans As Double
Dim j As Long
For j = 1 To n
ans = ans + Log(j)
Next j
LogFactorial = ans
End Function

Test:
? LogFactorial(229)
1018.95850224969

Which checks with another program:

Log[229!]
1018.9585022496902

HTH ;>)
--
Dana DeLouis
Win XP & Office 2003


"Rushi" <Rushi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A23F286-6249-4107-95BF-0E7ACE92E2AC@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
>
> For some analysis I am doing, I tried the following LOG(FACT(229)), and it
> returned NUM!. I am wondering if 229 is too big a number to compute a
> Factorial of ? If so, is there an upper limit (something like FACT
> function
> can be applied for numbers <= 150) for the FACT function ?
>
> Thanks in anticipation,
>
> Rushi Patel

Oops. Didn't even think of this:

=GAMMALN(229+1)

1018.95850224964

HTH :>)
--
Dana DeLouis
Win XP & Office 2003


"Dana DeLouis" <delouis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:OsRrjksuFHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi. 229! has 443 digits in it, so it's too big for both the worksheet and
> vba. (27! being the max in Vba)
> Here's just one workaround:
>
> Function LogFactorial(n) As Double
> Dim ans As Double
> Dim j As Long
> For j = 1 To n
> ans = ans + Log(j)
> Next j
> LogFactorial = ans
> End Function
>
> Test:
> ? LogFactorial(229)
> 1018.95850224969
>
> Which checks with another program:
>
> Log[229!]
> 1018.9585022496902
>
> HTH ;>)
> --
> Dana DeLouis
> Win XP & Office 2003
>
>
> "Rushi" <Rushi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9A23F286-6249-4107-95BF-0E7ACE92E2AC@microsoft.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> For some analysis I am doing, I tried the following LOG(FACT(229)), and
>> it
>> returned NUM!. I am wondering if 229 is too big a number to compute a
>> Factorial of ? If so, is there an upper limit (something like FACT
>> function
>> can be applied for numbers <= 150) for the FACT function ?
>>
>> Thanks in anticipation,
>>
>> Rushi Patel
>
>

Since he wanted LOG not LN,

=GAMMALN(229+1)/LN(10)

Bernie

> Oops. Didn't even think of this:

I'm impressed....