Using it with the same arguments discussed earlier indicates that there are 1,413,720 four-character combinations (permutations) possible from 36 possible characters where each character can be used only once. If you want them to be considered differently, then you should rely on the PERMUT function, which uses the same syntax as the COMBIN function. Thus, it considers "abcd", "bcda", "cdab", and "dabc" to all be a single combination. In understanding whether the COMBIN function is best for your purposes, it is important to understand that the function returns a value that doesn't consider the ordering of the combinations.
Just for those who are curious, the answer returned is 58,905. Thus, you could use the following to determine the number of four-character combinations that you can make from the alphabet (26 letters) and the ten digits: In this syntax, universe represents the number of items from which the combinations can be made, and sets represents the number that must be in each combination. The syntax of the function is as follows: Your particular example is way beyond integer precision, but even the much smaller COMBIN(110,3) calculates 215820 +2.Have you ever wondered how many different four-character combinations you can make when you start with 26 letters and 10 digits? Excel can tell you in a flash, if you use the COMBIN worksheet function. The function will calculate the number of combinations without repetitions for a given number of items. COMBIN(18,7) and COMBIN(18,11) calculate 31824 -3.64E-12 The COMBIN Function 1 is an Excel Math and Trigonometry functio n.But in some cases it gives a value marginally below or above the correct integer, typically one or two floating-point precisions above or below, and then tries to hide the fact it does: =COMBIN(9,3)-84 says 0 but in =(COMBIN(9,3)-84=0) it actually calculates a number -1.421E-14 to compare with 0. More often than not, Excel's COMBIN function manages to give the correct integer. The TRUE result is the desired behaviour. There are much smaller examples, and the first is:
So if this is important to you, you need to round the outcome when dealing with small integers, or allow some flexibility in equality tests without comparing to 0.
#EXCEL COMBIN FUNCTION MOD#
This only seems to turn up in the real world when doing comparisons with 0, or using the MOD function. There is a special COMBIN bug in Excel which has been present for many many years (Excel 2006 or earlier and still in Excel 365) and is not obviously related to the division of large numbers since it happens with small integers when giving integer results. What puzzles me is that sticking with 110, the discrepancies arise only 29 times in the B2 range 1-109 – but for any explanation of that it may be best to revert to Mathematics! The bottom part breaks that formula down into its components, showing that the largest element has a value 1.5882E+178. The top part of the image below shows this (and confirms your results!): I’m afraid the answer has to be the lack of precision in Excel (15 digits max) but maybe that is not really a good enough answer.Įxcel’s =COMBIN() function for A2 (say 110) and B2 (say 35) can be broken down as: =FACT(A2)/(FACT(A2-B2)*FACT(B2))
0 kommentar(er)
