Hi,
I've fixed this bug and added the patch to BugZilla.
Can someone please verify?
Thanks,
Regards,
Maarten
On 14 Mar 2013, at 19:29, Regina Henschel wrote:
> 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: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
