Hi Maarten,
Maarten Kesselaers schrieb:
Hi,
In the bug report 121722 is stated that the functions IMCSCH and IMSECH
calculate wrong.
If I compare (see below), then I can only state that this is a bug.
IMCSCH(“4+3i”) IMDIV(1;IMSINH("4+3i"))
-1.98126088062431-0.282421953026095i -0.0362758896286261-0.00517447318401941i
IMSECH(“4+3i”) IMDIV(1;IMCOSH(“4+3i”))
-1.97871030322975-0.2820582499879i -0.0362534969158689-0.00516434460775319i
But in the documentation
(http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/How_Tos/Calc:_IMSECH_function),
there is the following :
[quote]
IMSECH( z ) is equivalent to IMDIV(1;IMCOSH( z )).
To get better accuracy it is not implemented that way
[unquote]
So apparently, this was an implementation decision, but I believe that the
differences are to big.
Can anyone clarify me if it should be fixed and which implementation should be
preferred?
The answer is in the bug report:
"The correct formula can be found at
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekans_Hyperbolicus_und_Kosekans_Hyperbolicus#Komplexes_Argument";
Kind regards
Regina
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
