IMSUB

Microsoft publishes '=IMSUB("13+4i","5+3i")' with the result 8+i. Derived from the identity the page renders as an image, (a+bi) - (c+di) = (a-c) + (b-d)i: 13-5 = 8 and 4-3 = 1. Exact integer arithmetic. The result is one of the two published Microsoft strings in which an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 is printed as "i" with no digit -- the rule that the IMSQRT("-1") case in this same batch shows LibreOffice only got right from 25.2 onwards. EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

Exact: (1+i) - (1+i) = 0 + 0i. Both parts are zero and the documented format collapses the result to a bare "0" rather than "0+0i". EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

The page's description says "in x + yi or x + yj text format", so the j suffix is documented, not a guess. The arithmetic is identical to Microsoft's published example -- 8 and 1 -- and the answer must come back with the SAME suffix it was given, with the coefficient of 1 still printed as a bare "j". EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

Microsoft publishes '=IMSUB("13+4i","5+3i")' with the result 8+i. Derived from the identity the page renders as an image, (a+bi) - (c+di) = (a-c) + (b-d)i: 13-5 = 8 and 4-3 = 1. Exact integer arithmetic. The result is one of the two published Microsoft strings in which an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 is printed as "i" with no digit -- the rule that the IMSQRT("-1") case in this same batch shows LibreOffice only got right from 25.2 onwards. EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

Exact: (1+i) - (1+i) = 0 + 0i. Both parts are zero and the documented format collapses the result to a bare "0" rather than "0+0i". EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

The page's description says "in x + yi or x + yj text format", so the j suffix is documented, not a guess. The arithmetic is identical to Microsoft's published example -- 8 and 1 -- and the answer must come back with the SAME suffix it was given, with the coefficient of 1 still printed as a bare "j". EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

Microsoft publishes '=IMSUB("13+4i","5+3i")' with the result 8+i. Derived from the identity the page renders as an image, (a+bi) - (c+di) = (a-c) + (b-d)i: 13-5 = 8 and 4-3 = 1. Exact integer arithmetic. The result is one of the two published Microsoft strings in which an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 is printed as "i" with no digit -- the rule that the IMSQRT("-1") case in this same batch shows LibreOffice only got right from 25.2 onwards. EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

Exact: (1+i) - (1+i) = 0 + 0i. Both parts are zero and the documented format collapses the result to a bare "0" rather than "0+0i". EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.

The page's description says "in x + yi or x + yj text format", so the j suffix is documented, not a guess. The arithmetic is identical to Microsoft's published example -- 8 and 1 -- and the answer must come back with the SAME suffix it was given, with the coefficient of 1 still printed as a bare "j". EXCEL'S COMPLEX-STRING FORMAT, which this corpus derives rather than assumes: a result is rendered as the real part, then the sign, then the imaginary coefficient followed by the suffix, with each part printed to at most 15 significant digits and trailing zeros stripped; a zero real part is omitted entirely, a zero imaginary part reduces the result to a bare real number, and an imaginary coefficient of exactly 1 or -1 prints as "i" / "-i" with no digit. That rule was written as a formatter in Python by batch D and validated against seven independently published Microsoft strings (IMCOS, IMCOSH, IMCOT, IMCSC, IMCSCH, IMEXP, IMLN); batch E re-ran that validation and then extended it, reproducing THIRTEEN MORE published Microsoft strings byte for byte (IMLOG10, IMLOG2, IMPOWER, both IMPRODUCT examples, IMSEC, IMSECH, IMSIN, IMSINH, IMSQRT, IMSUB, IMSUM, IMTAN) before predicting anything -- twenty published strings in all. ONE REFINEMENT BATCH E HAD TO MAKE: batch D fed the formatter the EXACT value computed at 40 digits, which happened to render identically to the IEEE double for all seven of its strings. That is not true here. A spreadsheet engine holds a double, not the exact value, and two of this batch's published strings only come out right if the derivation rounds to the nearest double BEFORE formatting: IMPOWER("2+3i",3) is exactly -46+9i in exact arithmetic but Microsoft publishes -46+9.00000000000001i, which is what exp(3*ln(2+3i)) gives in double precision; and IMSEC("4+3i") has an exact real part of -0.06529402785794704644..., whose 15-digit rounding ends ...47, while the correctly-rounded double -0.065294027857947051 rounds to ...471, which is what Microsoft publishes. So every value in this batch is derived exactly with mpmath at 40 digits, THEN rounded to the double an engine actually holds, THEN formatted. String results are compared exactly, so a formatting-only difference (a trailing zero, "1i" for "i", a different digit count) fails the case and is recorded as its own divergence class, separate from a wrong numeric value.