[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

*Subject*: **RE: [office-formula] frequency**

*From*:**Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>***To*: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org*Date*: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:54:35 -0700

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 10:41 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > 1. RATIONALIZATION OF SPECIFICATION OF FREQUENCY PARAMETER VALUES. > > I agree there are only a couple of cases for what the frequency values are, > but having the tabular definition is useful, and it would satisfy Patrick's > sensibilities around redundancy if the specific table could be linked from > the description of a parameter value. I think we should delete those descriptions of parameters values. They do _not_ define them. This limitation on frequency should then become a constraint: frequency \in {1,2,4,12\} > It looks like there are only 1,2,4 > and 1,2,4,12 defined anywhere. > > (By plausible, I meant that they are all exact divisors of 12 so the > intervals are exact numbers of months that roll up to 12 in the specified > number of annual payments. I did mean to suggest that we allowed all such > frequency values on all of the functions that have such a parameter.) While you have observed a common property of these numbers (divisors of 12), this property does not define that set, since 3 is also a divisor of 12 but happens not to be included. This limitation on frequency is a constraint and should be listed as such! > > 2. COUPDAYBS CONTRADICTION > > Here is where I see contradiction in COUPDAYBS: > > 2.1 "Summary: ... the number of days between the beginning of the coupon > period that contains a settlement date and the settlement date." (I > corrected the use of articles here.) > > 2.2 "Semantics: [returns] the number of days from the beginning of the > coupon period to the settlement date." Note that is says "the coupon period", obviously it should specify which one. It does that in the summary. > > 2.3 The Summary is more precise than the semantics (?!). > > 2.4 Also, there are an immense number of unstated assumptions, such as how > the maturity and settlement parameters are different and how one determines > the start date of the coupon period containing the settlement date > (presumably the date given as the value of the settlement parameter). Of course we should have a formula describing the calculation. Everything else is subject to interpretation. > 3.2 I am not quarreling about how one understands %, rather about how one > expects rate values to be supplied and delivered. I am concerted about > confusion between how a field is formatted (and what happens on data entry) > and what the calculation is and what the numbers are in the calculation. I > don't think % symbols should be used in the test cases (but I also expect > the test cases to disappear). quoting from the OpenFormula draft: A percentage is a subtype of number which is typically displayed by multiplying the number by 100 and adding the sign "%". Thus, the value 0.50 if considered a percentage would typically be displayed as 50%. SO this is one display form of a number, there are others. We obviously are not always using the same. With respect to the use of % in the test cases, this is in no way different than using DATE(...) to specify dates since % is in fact a postfix operator. Andreas -- Andreas J. Guelzow Concordia University College of Alberta

**References**:**frequency***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**RE: [office-formula] frequency***From:*"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

**Re: [office-formula] frequency***From:*Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>

**RE: [office-formula] frequency***From:*"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

**RE: [office-formula] frequency***From:*Andreas J Guelzow <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**RE: [office-formula] frequency***From:*"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]