# Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis

#### samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the read-all-about-it dept.

303
cgjherr writes *"If the recent financial meltdown has left you wondering, 'When does exponential decay function stop?' then I have the book for you. Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis is the kind of book that only comes along every twenty years. A tome so densely packed with scientific and mathematical formulas that it almost dares you to try and understand it all. A "For Dummies" book starts with a gentle introduction to the technology. This is more like a "for Mentats" book. It assumes that you know Excel very well. The first chapter alone will have you in awe as you see the author turn the lowly Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude."* Read on for the rest of Jack's review.When I first opened this book my mouth just dropped. It had been years since I had seen a book typeset using LaTeX. But in an instant it made sense as the book is crammed packed with the kind of equations that would have been a nightmare to build with any other tools. Chapter after chapter has everything a really smart person needs to do curve fitting, statistical measures, differential equations, time-frequency analysis. But don't expect a play by play here. You will get the equations, set within a few dense paragraphs, with maybe a spreadsheet and a chart or two to show the results.

The first chapter concentrates on the getting the most out of Excel as a tool. All the chapters that follow dig into specific data analysis techniques. Chapters two, three and four are on least squares. Chapter five and six cover the analysis in the time domain including fourier transforms. Chapter seven covers differential equations. Chapter eight returns to Excel by digging in deeper into macros. Which leads into chapter nine, where we dig deeper into basic mathematical operations. Chapter ten covers matrix operations. And chapter eleven wraps it all up by giving you some spreadsheet best practices.

In University style there are also some exercises that you can do along the way if you want to tweak your brain pan a little more. To amuse myself I tried a few and I believe the book would have assessed my attempts 'wanting' if it had a voice to tell me.

Where most books like this would have several authors this book has just one; Roberte de Levie. This means that the tone, style and quality of the book is consistent throughout. A fact that you will come to appreciate as the book wades in ever increasingly deep data analysis concepts as the chapters roll on.

Though I would have preferred the book to have code samples in C#, I understand that the language of Excel is VBA and I guess I have to live with that. Thankfully VBA has come a long way and if you so inclined it would likely be easy to translate the code into C#, Java, or whatever else you like.

The fact that one person wrote the book left me wondering, "Who is this guy?" In my minds eye I kinda of figured he would look like one of those pulsing brain guys from Star Trek. Turns out he is a professor at Bowdoin College. And his fields of study include ionic equilibria, electrochemical kinetics, electrochemical oscillators, stochastic processes, and a whole lot more stuff that almost seems made up to sound impressive.

When this book isn't serving as an amazing reference for both Excel, scientific problem solving, or just insane equations it serves other purposes as well. It's a handy portable IQ test, as the count of pages you can grind through in one sitting, plus 90, is roughly your intelligence quotient. And if you fail at that you can always put a copy of the book, along with the Orange Bible, under your pillow and try to osmose your way to becoming the Kwisatz Haderach.

In all seriousness, this is a great book. It represents the kind of in-depth work and research we used to see in books that came out twenty years ago. Robert is to be applauded for his work. This is an excellent resource for anyone looking to do scientific data analysis but who was unaware of the powerful capabilities that Excel provides that is likely waiting just one Startup menu click away.

The book is not without fault. I would have preferred that it had been in color, or at least have one color section to show some of the more impressive visualizations that I'm sure would look great in color. In addition the index is silly short for a book that clocks in at 700 pages. But those are only minor quibbles for what is all-in-all an amazing piece of work.

You can purchase

*Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis*from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

## Why All Bailout Packages Will Fail (-1, Offtopic)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221079)

I've been thinking about this for a while, but I think I understand why the majority of the American people are against the current bailout package, and why ultimately all bailouts (whether for banks, mortgage holders, or taxpayers in general) will fail.

The root of the problem is not economic but sociological in nature. No amount of economic carrots will fix the problem, despite the fact they may delay the crash or draw it out into a painstakingly long-term affair. Individidual productivity has dropped off as people have become depressed with their jobs, which seem to absorb ever increasing amounts of their time and effort.

Americans have become disillusioned with going after material at the expense of building relationships. People are addicted to their jobs and have delayed finding a partner of the opposite sex, getting married, and having children. Their job brings them immediate stability and shiny things; however, they know their long-term stability is at risk.

I think a majority of the population would appreciate a breather from the corporate world, and if there are large swaths of people in the same position, that gives them ample chance to meet with other people who have plenty of spare time in order to build relationships that cannot be built barhopping on Friday nights.

Maybe I'm projecting my thoughts too much on the rest of the populance, but I know very few people my age (~30 years old) who have even started building a family, and that's quite frankly, distressing. The economy isn't everything. The crash will happen. We will survive. Let it happen swiftly and let the recovery happen in the near term.

## Re:Why All Bailout Packages Will Fail (1)

## dzfoo (772245) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221945)

So what you are saying is that Excel should be banned from the Congress?

-dZ.

## alternately.... (5, Insightful)

## mattdm (1931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221095)

Don't do it! [burns-stat.com]

## Re:alternately.... kind of begs the question... (-1)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221915)

Why hasn't anybody come out with anything in between?

LaTeX is a chore, Mathematica requires a PHD, and Excel is retarded at best. Are these the 3 choices we get in 2008?

There is OBVIOUSLY a reasonably large market for something simpler then LaTeX and Mathematica in a lower price point, yet with more function and transparency (and accuracy?) than excel could ever offer.

Maybe an "output to excel" function to satisfy the plebes? I dunno. I just keep seeing this fight on /. and wondering why each time.

## Re:alternately.... kind of begs the question... (1)

## blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221979)

For what? The three items you discuss do different things.

Presumably nobody uses LaTeX for making charts or for performing calculations (the latter of which is really what's being addressed here).

## Re:alternately.... kind of begs the question... (1)

## stranger_to_himself (1132241) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222235)

Presumably nobody uses LaTeX for making charts or for performing calculations (the latter of which is really what's being addressed here).

The PSTricks [tug.org] package can make some really beautiful charts in LaTeX documents.

There's a book called Tex Unbound that gives lots of other ways to make charts in TeX/LaTeX that are way better than Excel output (or most other graphing packages IMO).

## Re:alternately.... kind of begs the question... (4, Informative)

## MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222107)

What in the world are you talking about? :)

LaTeX is a markup language. You can express math with it, but it doesn't do anything for you in terms of analysis.

Excel is good for small data sets and quick looks at stuff - but painful to develop in.

Mathematica requires college-level calculus and linear algebra... not PhD stuff by any stretch.

Anyway, you left out Matlab - which is pretty awesome. Depending on what you are doing, there is also R, Maple, Minitab, MathCAD, yada, yada, yada. Lately I've been doing stuff in Python... SAGE is pretty nifty, and the NumPy/SciPy stuff is coming along well (it is included in SAGE).

## Re:alternately.... kind of begs the question... (3, Informative)

## jank1887 (815982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222245)

## ...there's a better solution (4, Interesting)

## mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222169)

Python for scientific analysis [scipy.org] ,

Python is the solution I recommend for everyone who looks for tips on advanced Excel uses. Excel is OK if you just want some quick and dirty solution for a small problem, but if you have to go to the trouble of reading a book, Excel is clearly not the best solution.

For scientists and engineers who need something more than what Excel (and possibly Matlab) offers, I recommend starting with either A Byte of Python [swaroopch.com] or Dive Into Python [diveintopython.org] .

## This was the problem (0, Funny)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221097)

The whole financial mess was due to the use of Excel? No wander!

## Bad math (3, Funny)

## kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221121)

If the recent financial meltdown has left you wondering, 'When does exponential decay function stop?' then I have the book for you. Advanced Excel for Scientific Data AnalysisSo THAT's why we had a financial meltdown. All of those investment banks were doing their books and analysis with Excel 2007.

## Re:Bad math (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221567)

You were modded funny, but many of the quants at the BoA create their mathematical models in Excel VBA (these are quants with Ph.Ds in physics). These get handed over to the software dev team to be recoded in some other language like Java or C#.

Some other places have had some success persuading their quants to use better tools like MATLAB, but Excel is still one of the primary tools used for modeling owing to its universal availability and folks' familiarity with it.

It boggles the mind, I know.

## incongruous (5, Funny)

## drfireman (101623) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221149)

There's something hard to reconcile about the reviewer's obvious awe and the fact that the book was written by someone who thinks doing meaningful scientific data analysis in Excel is a good idea.

## Re:incongruous (3, Insightful)

## fbjon (692006) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221167)

## Re:incongruous (4, Interesting)

## Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221547)

Why isn't it a good idea, and does this apply equally to OpenOffice?It's OK for simple stuff, but trying to do something like implementing a loop in a spreadsheet. And yes, the criticism applies to OO as well.

There are very good packages out there - some open source - for doing scientific analysis. I'd recommend R or Octave (a matlab clone), personally. Also, Python + NumPy + SciPy + Pylab is great for doing Matlab-like things, and it's all free as well.

## Loops in spreadsheets (1)

## weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221815)

It's OK for simple stuff, but trying to do something like implementing a loop in a spreadsheet.This is one reason the VB scripting turns out to be highly useful. But that said... for half the things loops might be useful for in a normal context, they're wrong in a spreadsheet. Iterating over a set of data isn't done with loops, it's done with applying formulas over a range of cells. And if you turn on iteration for the spreadsheet, it *is* possible to build flow-controlling state machines without using the scripting engine. Not particularly natural for most imperative programmers, but definitely possible.

So I don't think loops are the issue. My understanding is that the biggest problem with using Excel for detailed number crunching is in how they handle some precision/float issues.

## Re:Loops in spreadsheets (2, Interesting)

## MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222175)

This is one reason the VB scripting turns out to be highly useful.

I recently had to do a project in VBA/Excel after years away from it, and it made me want to dig my eyes out with a spoon.

Don't ever write custom functions... ever. You'll thank me when you don't have to worry about whether or not they silently fail.

And once I had my whole spreadsheet corrupt for some reason... had to open on a Mac and re-save it. Then it worked fine on the PC again! Aye.

## while True: (1)

## mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222277)

I need infinite loops, you insensitive clod!

## Re:incongruous (2, Interesting)

## cyphercell (843398) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221751)

## Re:incongruous ...I KNEW there was a reason (1)

## davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221877)

all these years i referred to ms excel as "HEXEDcell"...

Others referred to ms office as ms orifice.

Now, if OO.o fails to at least equal mso, and if OO.o crashes Wall Street 2.0, would we call OO.o "OpenOrifice", in the name of "fairness"?

## Re:incongruous (1)

## syphax (189065) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222039)

- Crappy visualization

- Sometimes a 2-D data structure ain't the best

- Excel's pivot tables get the job done, but they have some pretty inconvenient behavior

- Sometimes you want to define a formula once and apply it everywhere, not once per row (when you have ~60k rows). Excel can really bog down when you start having a lot of formulas for big datasets; other tools handle this better

- Last I checked it still had some accuracy issues

- And many more

A lot of the time Excel is fine. But it's usually not the

besttool for the job.BTW last I checked, OO had a workable link with R. I think it was a Summer of Code project; I don't know the current status.

## Re:incongruous (2, Interesting)

## fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221271)

There's something hard to reconcile about the reviewer's obvious awe and the fact that the book was written by someone who thinks doing meaningful scientific data analysis in Excel is a good idea.

Care to expand on why you think you can't do 'meaningful scientific data analysis in Excel?' Are you one of these people who 'reviews' books without actually reading them?

## Re:incongruous (2, Interesting)

## johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221315)

## Re:incongruous (1)

## fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221399)

Last time I checked (and it has been a while)

How long is a 'while?'

## Re:incongruous (2, Insightful)

## johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221433)

## Re:incongruous (1)

## Murple the Purple (130813) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221619)

Beating on ExcelDo you check your math utility? Or do you just assume your compiler/vendor does everything correctly?

## Re:incongruous (1)

## MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222233)

I certainly run the test suite before using a new build of SciPy/NumPy - but I'm largely dependent on the developers.

Still, in Excel I've caught errors and so now I usually calculate things in two different ways to try and catch stuff. For instance, fit a line using both the built-in methods and the solver. Don't use the line fit in the graphing tool - that's one error that I found.

## Re:incongruous (2, Interesting)

## Murple the Purple (130813) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221637)

Beating on Excel is easy. Do you check your math utility? Or do you just assume your compiler/vendor does everything correctly?

## Re:incongruous (4, Insightful)

## johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221695)

## Re:incongruous (1)

## Murple the Purple (130813) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222009)

At which optimization levels?

## Re:incongruous (1)

## johnny cashed (590023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222215)

## Re:incongruous (2, Insightful)

## TarrVetus (597895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221673)

Well, 2007 has bugs in it. I don't use Excel, I use something that can utilize math correctly. Have you checked your spreadsheet program? Or do you just assume that Microsoft does everything correctly?

I use Excel for daily business functions and data analysis, and will continue to do so, but I don't assume Excel is perfect. I do what I should do with any program I use for calculations, though: I stay aware of all of the quirks and bugs I can of the program, and try to work around them.

Every program is going to have a bug or two (or five thousand, seeing as Excel is part of MS Office), but part of working with software is to know what those are and learn to not let them ruin work.

## Re:incongruous (1)

## bugnuts (94678) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221465)

Care to expand on why you think you can't do 'meaningful scientific data analysis in Excel?'

A while back, and this might not be true today, Excel gave errors when doing certain functions. [maryparker.org] In this case it was standard deviation.

Several scientific papers came out which had to be recalculated using mathematica or matlab or spice or something, because the data couldn't be trusted after the error was exposed. A small error introduced can be very large, depending how it was used and in the order the data were gathered ... thus Excel got a very bad name for doing "meaningful scientific data analysis."

## Re:incongruous (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221481)

The difference between "meaningful scientific data analysis in Excel

is not a good idea" and "meaningful scientific data analysis in Excelcan't be done" is quite substantial, actually.If you can't review so much as a single sentence correctly, why should I care about your opinions on entire books?

## Re:incongruous (1)

## MadMidnightBomber (894759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221701)

Because I have

a. done meaningful scientific analysis

b. used Excel

I've actually used a combination of perl, matlab, C, weka and pen and paper, so that might sound even worse, but it's not :)

## Re:incongruous (2, Insightful)

## drfireman (101623) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221939)

Care to expand on why you think you can't do 'meaningful scientific data analysis in Excel?' Are you one of these people who 'reviews' books without actually reading them?

Someone else has already posted a link to a page that nicely summarizes many (not all) of the problems with using excel for science. But there is virtually no statistical technique which isn't already better implemented in R (free) and many other statistical packages. Real stats packages provide implementations of a given technique that are at least as reliable, provide more control, more options, more diagnostics, and often more guidance. The built-in stuff in Excel is so oversimplified that I think if you're really forced to use it for serious statistics, you'd have to re-implement things using basic arithmetic operations. It's graphing capabilities, last time I checked, lacked the majority of even the most basic kinds of statistical/scientific graphs/plots. Sure, you can do this or that in Excel, and if you're willing to put in enough work you can often get what you really need out of it. But it's rarely if ever the best tool for the job of scientific data analysis.

I don't review books about reading them, and this is no exception. But I do have an informed opinion about the premise of this book (and to a lesser extent about the level of insight of a reviewer who seems, to put it mildly, easily awed). The premise that Excel is good to use for scientific data analysis is pretty deeply misguided. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise if I were really wrong, but I can only set aside so much time for listening to arguments from nutcases (just in case one of them may have a point). I'm sure if I actually read this book, I'd learn about various useful things Excel can do that would surprise and impress me. But I already have all the information I need to form a reliable opinion on this question, and I value my time too much to read books about space aliens living among us or about doing analysis in Excel.

Truth to tell, I use openoffice calc (more or less an Excel clone) quite a bit for research-related things. But I'm careful with it, and don't rely on it for much more than moving numbers around.

## Re:incongruous (1)

## 91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221691)

If you need to do something sufficiently complex that you feel you need to invest the time to read this book, I can't help feeling that learning to use Matlab or something might be a better use of the time.

## Re:incongruous (1)

## blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222071)

That doesn't really sound like you're doing significant scientific data analysis.

## Anonymous Coward (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221171)

...but will it blend?

## Wrong Tool (5, Interesting)

## Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221253)

Talk about the wrong tool for the job. If you need to do any sort of serious data analysis, use R, not Excel.

## Re:Wrong Tool (2, Informative)

## treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221431)

## R : script support (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221439)

Does R have hooks for Perl or some other scripting language?

I have test equipment that spews data and I need to load it via a script. Excel is quite suited for this.

## Re:R : script support (1)

## compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221507)

R-Perl may fit your needs.

http://www.omegahat.org/RSPerl/ [omegahat.org]

## Re:R : script support (1)

## lbbros (900904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221725)

## Re:R : script support (1)

## retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221781)

If you're willing to spend hours setting it up, and getting it to "sort of" work with touch-ups required every few days. Maybe I'm a dolt, but I never got any of the embedded-R interfaces to work satisfactorily. The documentation was always just too out-dated, and there were too many surprises and inconsistencies. By the time I worked them out, it would have been easier to do it another way.

If you're in a unix environment, I suggest looking at littleR [vanderbilt.edu] which makes the R libraries usable in unix "piping" style. Useful for batch processing, but of course not good for real-time.

In windows, you're going to have a hard time with either of these. That RExcel mentioned above looks interesting, even though it offends my sensibilities. ;-)

## Re:R : script support (1)

## Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221683)

Yes, another person mentioned the perl module.

There's also RPy [sourceforge.net] , a python interface. Works pretty well.

## This problem was sorted out? (3, Interesting)

## merkur (256572) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221493)

## Re:Wrong Tool (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221561)

What is this Arrrrrrrr, and where can I pirate it from?

## Re:Wrong Tool (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221887)

It's free software.

Joke understood, but ignored.

## Re:Wrong Tool (2, Insightful)

## internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221675)

## Re:Wrong Tool (1)

## ykardia (645087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222177)

## eh? (4, Insightful)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221273)

"The first chapter alone will have you in awe as you see the author turn the lowly Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude."

Then why not just use Mathematica?

## Re:eh? (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221385)

Perhaps because you work in an environment where they have a corporate culture of expecting results in an Excel spreadsheet?

Surely we can admire someone for mastering a tool to the point where they can do extremely complex operations using that tool then writing a book on how to learn to do the same thing? If you can learn to do this in Excel and if Mathematica is a superior product then surely learning how to do this in Excel will only make it easier in Mathematica?

I admire the folks that do incredible paintings in MS Paint, even if I have no desire to learn how to do so (for instance this: http://diamonster.deviantart.com/art/powerdraw-17908194 ) I don't see how this differs really. It might not be the perfect tool for the job but its great to see someone who has figured out how to bypass its limitations and use it anyways.

## Re:eh? (1)

## retchdog (1319261) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221893)

They are wasting their time on something enjoyable; mspaint "masterpieces" are comparable to playing WoW or doing macrame (all 3 of these things are great, don't get me wrong).

On the other hand, it's disgusting to have so much productivity and economy wasted on shoe-horning the godawful Excel into pretending intelligence. Not to mention how error-prone it is; a mistake in MSPaint is mildly annoying; a rounding error or outright bogus value in science is close to lying.

## Re:eh? (1)

## Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221951)

Now if you have a crazy person that needs to twiddle some numbers and watch the out put in excel.. then you have a point. Haven't read the book, but there are some third party plugins that turn excel into something like a data cruncher. TK Solver [us.com] includes an excel plugin that give it its capabilities.

## Re:eh? (4, Insightful)

## goofballs (585077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221519)

"The first chapter alone will have you in awe as you see the author turn the lowly Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude."

Then why not just use Mathematica?

## Re:eh? (5, Informative)

## gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221745)

If you're going to mention that the Office costs $150 for a student version, you might as well mention that Mathematica's student version (identical to the full version, except for a banner upon printing) is $140.

## Re:eh? (2, Informative)

## gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221789)

Oh, and as for sharing w/ people who don't have Mathematica, that's what the free Mathematica Readers are for.

## Re:eh? (1)

## goofballs (585077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222077)

## Re:eh? (1)

## Vertigo Acid (1164963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222139)

Except Office Home and Student is just a product title, not a special student-only version.

## Re:eh? (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221809)

"The first chapter alone will have you in awe as you see the author turn the lowly Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude."

Then why not just use Mathematica?

1. http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/format/XLS.html

2. http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/format/XLS.html

3. student edition of mathematica is $139

thanks for your input d00d

## Re:eh? (1)

## goofballs (585077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222223)

no no, that YOU d0000d.

## Re:eh? (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221531)

Because then you don't need their book?

## Re:eh? (2, Insightful)

## The Dancing Panda (1321121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221573)

## Re:eh? (2)

## jpmorgan (517966) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221681)

## Re:eh? (1)

## goofballs (585077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221705)

Because I already have Excel, and Mathematica is another 120 dollars?

uh, it's about another $2500 actually... student pricing is about $135 or so.

## I have not read the book (2, Interesting)

## melted (227442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221291)

But it seems you have not seen Word 2007 equation editor. It's close, in both capabilities, and output quality, to LaTeX. Too bad the rest of Word sucks ass.

>> that would have been a nightmare to build with any other tools

## Re:I have not read the book (1)

## PatDev (1344467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221395)

Is this true? If so, I'd like to take a look. I'd probably still use LaTeX, as I've already invested the learning curve, but it could be interesting.

But then, remember that beautiful maths are just a feature of LaTeX, not the main focus. It's a document processor, which is nice in that someone like me with little aesthetic taste can simply specify the *content* of my paper and let LaTeX worry about the layout. And maybe you can write a paper in word that looks as good, but I know I've never been able to.

## Re:I have not read the book (2, Informative)

## Forbman (794277) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221559)

The company that developed the equation editor (MS licenses a neutered version of it for Office) does have a full-blown version available...

## Re:I have not read the book (1)

## maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221693)

Your comment was a lot more true for versions of Office prior to 2007:

http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2006/10/04/Equations-in-Word-2007.aspx [msdn.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Editor [wikipedia.org]

## Re:I have not read the book (2, Informative)

## slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221645)

It may be close now in output quality, but any search, point and click system will always be inferior to LaTeX when it comes to equations.

## Re:I have not read the book (2, Interesting)

## solafide (845228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221971)

## Re:I have not read the book (1)

## networkconsultant (1224452) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222005)

## Re:I have not read the book (4, Insightful)

## backwardMechanic (959818) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222047)

Yes, I use both. LaTeX if I have a choice, Word if I need to exchange docs with less enlightened colleagues.

## Wrong tool for the job (4, Informative)

## Daishiman (698845) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221305)

## ROOT (1)

## phizix (1143711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221363)

## Spreadsheets are the right tool ... (4, Funny)

## MacTO (1161105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221407)

You see, there is a fundamental problem in science and the problem can be summarized as this: how do you get the right results in order to optimize the grants that you receive. Spreadsheets are ideal for this purpose for two reasons. First of all, they are designed to handle financial data. This is great because financial data are what grants are all about. For example: will result X allow for a conference in Hawaii or California this year.

The other big reason to use spreadsheets is that they make data more maluable. Normal scientific tools make it difficult to micromanage the data that you acquire, partially because the people who produce that software have this mistaken notion that data has to be managed in a consistent way. So you're usually stuck doing the same thing to an entire dataset, and it's even difficult to treat different datasets in different way. But spreadsheets expose all of that data, so it is easy to tweak an observation here and a variable there to get the desired result to maximize your grant.

So you see, spreadsheets are a tremendously valueable tool for scientists. It is the best tool for the job.

## Re:Spreadsheets are the right tool ... (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221621)

Prof. Smith, is that you?

## Re:Spreadsheets are the right tool ... (1)

## jhfry (829244) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221905)

Spreadsheets are right for much of what you state... but surely one could use another tool to generate the data and simply import the data into Excel to perform more basic operations.

For some things, especially complex math, spreadsheets simply are much less efficient and completely unnecessary.

## That's nothing (5, Insightful)

## MarkusQ (450076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221483)

So? What's so special about that? You can turn C, Fortran, or even assembly language into something that rivals Mathematica using brains and a heaping helping of fortitude. This is arguably a better deal, since you don't need the VBA.

--MarkusQ

## When all you have is a hammer... (5, Insightful)

## Vornzog (409419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221497)

...everything looks like a snowglobe!

Hardcore data analysis in Excel is almost always a bad idea. You can almost always find a way to do it in excel, and you can almost always find a way to do it better, faster, and cheaper somewhere else.

R, MatLab, Mathemateica, Python/Numpy, SigmaPlot, and any number of old, well written, debugged and vetted numerical libraries written in C or Fortran. I've used all of these at various times to solve something that a co-worker couldn't figure out how to do in Excel.

I fit quick linear regressions in Excel. For *anything* else, there is a better choice.

## Re:When all you have is a hammer... (1)

## pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221919)

Hardcore data analysis in Excel is almost always a bad idea. You can almost always find a way to do it in excel, and you can almost always find a way to do it better, faster, and cheaper somewhere else.I would have to disagree, having used both Excel and "rolled my own" in pure C.

My own code runs a few

thousandtimes faster, I know exactly where the errors might pop up, and I don't need to try to squeeze the data into a form suitable to whatever MS decided I should use this week, I just handle anything I want, however I want it done. I can graph it any way I like, save the data to any format I like ("Hmm, I wonder what that functionsoundslike... Okay, where'd I put that RIFF header code?"), and I can implement ways to massage data never seen outside pretty hardcore mathematical research journals.All of that, while undeniably "superior" in nearly every aspect to Excel, takes

timeto implement - Potentially quite a lot of it.And then we have Excel... I can take list of raw numbers in most common list- or table-like formats, paste it in, and run a polynomial regression on it in 30 seconds flat, with another minute or two to graph it in 99% of the ways I would ever think of using. I can prettify the data for showing PHBs with a half-dozen clicks. I can save my results in a format anyone can view, without having to write a specific set of routines to export this particular blob of data to format-X. I can trivially preprocess the data in a wide variety of ways to see how it affects the results, and see the changes happen as I go.

In short, Excel makes it much,

mucheasier to "play" with data than most programs designed specifically for "serious" mathematical work - In much the same way that I can do most simple image touch-ups in MS Paint faster than GIMP would even finish loading all its plugins.Now, I sure as hell wouldn't publish (or more likely for me, sell to a client) results or methods based on a quick-n'-dirty Excel sheet... But I can try a hundred different approaches to working with the data in the time it would take to rigorously code just one of them, and then spend my actual effort (aka "the client's money") on coding up what looks like the

bestapproach to the data.## Spreadsheets are not the right tool (3, Informative)

## elite1789 (1245036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221541)

## Excel is a horrible tool (4, Insightful)

## slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221571)

I know it is popular and many science and engineering faculty lazily encourage their graduate students to use it. However, something like matlab beats the crap out of excel any day. Spreadsheets tend to obfuscate relationships between data, require a lot more clicking (read human intervention) and waste time that could be spent thinking about the data, and are singularly unsuited for analysis of similar sets of data (a situation any scientist faces when he has to do a series of experiments).

Matlab might take sometime to initially write the scripts, but it is so powerful and extensible that no one in their right mind would want to use excel. If you are a slave to spreadsheets, get yourself a copy of Microcal Origin or Labplot.

Excel is especially unsuited to the task of preparing figures for scientific publications. The default formatting is at once wrong for the task and hard to change. Once you set your preferences in matlab (easy to do), you are set for life.

In my experience, excel is also rarely used for anything serious outside of US. Maybe its an indictment of how lazy, slow witted and easily misled our pool of talent is becoming.

## Re:Excel is a horrible tool (1)

## gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221873)

Thank you for mentioning Labplot (http://labplot.sourceforge.net/). I'd also like to put in a shout-out for QTIPlot (http://soft.proindependent.com/qtiplot.html) and Scilab (http://www.scilab.org/), and of course the aforementioned Sage (http://www.sagemath.org/).

QTIPlot and LabPlot, in particular, have amazingly responsive developers, who seems to go out of their ways to help people.

## Re:Excel is a horrible tool (2, Funny)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221909)

I don't quite understand your post. Do you have a Power Point presentation?

## Excel does not Excel (4, Interesting)

## systemeng (998953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221623)

## Using Excel for scientific calculations (2, Funny)

## gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221679)

## Excel *could* replace SPSS (not Mathematica) (3, Informative)

## Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221805)

SPSS has now become the standard data analysis package for quantitative studies in social sciences. It's very crappy software, and it wouldn't take a whole lot of augmentation to get Excel do what SPSS does.

The problem is that social scientists don't want to mess with the internals too much, and SPSS made for them a point and click interface - in effect, they out-Microsofted Microsoft. They charge an insulting $1500/copy and completely dominate the universities, so they're making good money.

They seriously need some competition.

## excel as a flag (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25221813)

Serious researchers do not use excel. Period. Ask scientists in any national laboratory. Excel is a toy designed for simple accounting talks. It is slow, it is limited but, most importantly, it makes error prone since it refers to variables by their position on the spreadsheet, not their name or meaning or role in the workflow of the computation. I guess it is an ok tool to teach undergrads who will never go into sciences.

## Age of Excel (1)

## lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221843)

Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis is the kind of book that only comes along every twenty yearsExcel was introduced in 1990. So, assuming that it was introduced with a book just like this one in 1990, that would be "a kind of book that comes along every

eighteenyears". I'm certain the poster would have realized this had he or she applied what she'd read in the first edition to do the proper calculation.## Re:Age of Excel (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25222185)

And assuming you're not an idiot, you would realize that your post is idiotic. What if the book was titled "Today's Date is September 30th, 2008" and the OP said it is the kind of book that only comes along every twenty years?

It does not mean that there is actually a book written in 1988 on that subject. Merely, a book of similar quality, not even necessarily on the same subject.

## If you're wondering... (1)

## DirtySouthAfrican (984664) | more than 5 years ago | (#25221863)

## Re:If you're wondering... (1)

## icebrain (944107) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222013)

How about "How is babby formed?"

I know it's off-subject, but where did that come from? I've seen it in a couple places lately...

## Re:If you're wondering... (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25222181)

Google is your friend. I found this [encycloped...matica.com] .

## What versions of Excel are covered? (1)

## harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222041)

## Clueless Reviewer (0)

## Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25222161)

Its clear that the reviewer is not qualified to review this text. First, if they were familiar with scientific data analysis, they would not use Mathematica for their ridiculous comparison. Mathematica is also the wrong tool for the job. At least it does math correctly, something Excel cannot claim. [doi.org]

You haven't seen a book typeset in LaTeX recently? What scientific computing books do you read that allow you to avoid LaTeX for years?

Excel is not the right tool for the job. If you are going to put in the time to learn some new math, learning a better tool along the way makes sense.

Get a different book, and a different software package.

## Anecdote about Excel (2, Funny)

## Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222165)

If you couldn't figure out Excel within those two class periods, it was recommended that you switched your major to business administration. The business administration school had a semester long class devoted to learning Excel.

## comparison of Mathematica and Excel VBA .. (5, Informative)

## rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222167)

"Excel 2007, like its predecessors, fails a standard set of intermediate-level accuracy tests [mathforum.org] in three areas: statistical distributions, random number generation, and estimation"

## Am I supposed to take this review seriously? (1)

## exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25222273)