Isn't it possible the circular reference is wholly contained within the cell
formula?
--
Regards,
Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
:
| First, this is a plain text newsgroups. Most people don't like HTML posts
(and
| binary attachments).
|
| I've never seen excel confused about circular references. But I have seen
me
| struggle to find them.
|
| (I'd keep looking <bg>.)
|
|
| > Dean wrote:
| >
| > Hi Dave,
| >
| > I'm a little confused. The trace circular tells me exactly the chain,
it
| > identifies cell A, which depends on B .... D, which depends on E, which
| > depends on cell A, an obvious circular loop. Obviously, if I break the
chain
| > anywhere between A and E, the circularity goes away, including that of
"Joe"
| > (defined later).
| >
| > The cell that I call C is in the middle of that chain and the cell
(let's
| > call it "Joe") on another worksheet that shows as circular was the only
| > remaining issue. I guess Joe is, at best, only second generation
circular, in
| > that it depends on a cell (cell C) that is in the chain. But what
confuses me
| > most is that this Joe shows no dependents and I have no doubt that is
true,
| > since it is on a results summary exhibit, not to mention that nothing
changes
| > at all if I delete Joe.
| >
| > Is the answer that EXCEL gets a little confused in the face of
circularity,
| > sort of a guilt by association?
| >
| > Thanks!
| > Dean
| >
| > | > > If you change A1 to a number and the circular reference warning goes
away,
| > then
| > > look at the cells that are referred to in A1 (and the references in
those
| > > references in those references).
| > >
| > > It sure sounds like a circular reference to me.
| > >
| > > Dean wrote:
| > >>
| > >> It didn't find it either. It looks like this cell is a function of
cell C,
| > >> where the obvious circularity is a chain from cell A to cell E, where
A
| > >> depends on B which depends on C ... which depends on E, which
depends
| > back
| > >> on A.
| > >>
| > >> So, though C is in the middle of that chain, I still wouldn't expect
it to
| > >> cause a dependent cell, which is not in that chain, to show as
circular,
| > >> would you?
| > >>
| > >> In other words, if I change cell A to a number, all circularity goes
away.
| > >>
| > >> Thanks!
| > >> D
| > >>
| > >> DO
| > >>
| > >> | > >> > I'd bet that if excel thinks that there's a circular reference,
there's a
| > >> > circular reference.
| > >> >
| > >> > But if you have trouble finding the circular reference, maybe
Stephen
| > >> > Bullen's
| > >> > utility will help:
| > >> >
| > >> >
http://www.oaltd.co.uk/Excel/Default.htm
| > >> > Look for FindCirc.zip
| > >> >
| > >> >> Dean wrote:
| > >> >>
| > >> >> I have inherited a file that was set to iterative mode and I
turned that
| > >> >> off,
| > >> >> then tried to find the circular references, as I do not like
iterative
| > >> >> approaches in very complex workbooks, since I feel they can 'solve
their
| > >> >> way'
| > >> >> through programming errors. In any event, on one of the sheets,
the
| > cell
| > >> >> that
| > >> >> is identified as circular shows no dependents when I do trace
| > dependents.
| > >> >> Isn't that impossible?
| > >> >>
| > >> >> Thanks for any help.
| > >> >> Dean
| > >> >
| > >> > --
| > >> >
| > >> > Dave Peterson
| > >
| > > --
| > >
| > > Dave Peterson
|
| --
|
| Dave Peterson
