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

*Subject*: **Re: [office-formula] constraint of ACOT**

*From*:**robert_weir@us.ibm.com***To*: "office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org" <office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org>*Date*: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:04:33 -0500

Is the objection over the reference to PI() rather than directly using the Greek letter Pi? Or is the choice of convention the problem? According to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/InverseCotangent.html there are two conventions: (0,Pi) or (-Pi/2, Pi/2). The former is continuous, while that later has a discontinuity at 0. -Rob "Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca> wrote on 01/06/2010 11:15:44 AM: > > ACOT has the constraint "The result must be between 0 and PI()." This > doe snot look like a valid constraint to me. > > ANdreas > -- > Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD, FTICA > Mathematical & Computing Sciences > Concordia University College of Alberta >

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: [office-formula] constraint of ACOT***From:*"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>

**Re: [office-formula] constraint of ACOT***From:*"Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

**References**:**constraint of ACOT***From:*"Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow@math.concordia.ab.ca>

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