I am inputting a bunch of figures in Latex using
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\subfloat
etc.
How do I get the subfloat figures to go to the next page? What I mean is, I'm inputting a ton of figures so it'll definitely be more than one page but if I do separate figures for each the a, b, c, d, etc. for the captions will change, so ideally I'd like one enormous figure with a bunch of subfloats a through z on different pages - how do you do that? Right now, I simply can't see the subfloat figures that stretch over the page, so I'll need to get another page somehow.
Separate the figures into batches that fit on one page and in the figure environments after the first put
\addtocounter{figure}{-1}
which will decrease the figure counter making it the same as for the previous bunch and then also add
\addtocounter{subfigure}{N}
where N is the number of subfigs that you have already placed, which will start the subfig counter from the correct value.
More on the subfigure package here (PDF).
Related
Here's how it looks.
Hi. I'll try to be as specific as possible about this :)
I'm making a Google Sheet page similarly to a game character progression, that will automatically fill up based on data from other sheets: specifically, these "EXP" bars fill up with values based on the hidden cell A5.
For instance, the cells from D5 to BA5 represent LV1.
As the function shows, every time the value in A5 reaches an even number (for LV1, it's all even numbers from 2 to 100), one of the slots will fill up with a number, that with conditional formatting, will change the color of the cell and make it look like an actual exp bar filling up.
I'm using the function =COUNTIF(A5,">=2") and manually changing it to ">=4", ">=6" etc until ">=100" for the first bar. The second bar will have its 50 cells with all even numbers from ">=102" to ">=200".
So, to get to the question: is there an array formula that facilitates the process of filling a great amount of these bars with functions, without changing them all manually? Even automating *some *of this process would be great. Besides it being tedious, it leaves a lot of room for human error.
Thank you in advance to whoever's got an answer.
P
I haven't tried much as at the moment I am very confused by the vast amount of options array formulas provide. I have 48h of experience in the matter.
I suggest you to use the values of columns and rows here as helpers to do calculations. If you know that every column adds 2 and every row adds 100 you can set a formula like this for the whole range (select the whole range and add just one rule of conditional formatting):
=$A$5>((Column(D5)-3)*2+(Row(D5)-5)*100))
You use $symbol to make A5 steady and D5 value will "move" to each cell for conditional formatting, so you don't have to make an ARRAYFORMULA for this
I have made a bar chart which aggregates my data, but is there any way I can split each bar based on the data it is aggregating - similar to how a stacked bar chart would look?
Here is a bad artists impression (thick blue lines mine). The idea is that it's important to know from looking at the graph if I sold 5 at £1, or 1 at £5.
Ideally this would work even if the price for each item is variable, but that is not essential (eg: if there is a 'hack' with hardcoding Apple = 3, I can live with that.)
I'm also fine inputting helper columns etc, within reason, but I would want to be able to easily continue to add things to the list on the left without having to add new helper columns each time (calculated ones are fine, of course.)
Thanks in advance.
UPDATE: With thanks to Kin Siang below, I ended up implementing a slightly modified version of their solution, which I am posting here for completeness.
I added a very large (but finite) number of helper columns to the right, with a formula in each cell which would look for the nth occurrence of the item in the main list (wrapped in an iferror to make the unused cells blank).
=iferror(index(FILTER($A:$B,$A:$A=$D2),E$1,2))
Theoretically it could run out of space one day, but I have made it suitably large that this should not be an issue. It has the advantage over the other solution that I do not need to sort or otherwise manipulate the input range and can continue trickling in data to the main list and have the chart automatically update.
Yes, it is possible to display the chart in your case, however need some data transpose in order to do so, let me show you the example with dataset
Assuming this is your original data:
First sort the data by alphabet, and enter this formula in new column
=if(G39="",1,if(G40=G39,I39+1,if(G40<>G39,1)))
Next add new column for categorical purpose, by using concatenate function
="Price"&I40
In the transform data for chart purpose, enter this formula to split all price into different row, different column for different product
=sumifs($H$40:$H$47,$G$40:$G$47,$A41,$J$40:$J$47,B$40)
After that i select stack bar chart and ensure the price in under series, in case in 23 will have some problem to set price at series correctly, you can use 33 data create stack bar chart and update the data range again, it will work also
Here is the cute chart you expected, accept if help :)
*When certain fruit has less price record, it is advised to fill in 0, as the data table need in same column (see the orange price 3), although I didnot test if blank
So I have created an invoice spreadsheet in Google Sheets and have used merged cells extensively in order to create a cleaner look for the invoice.
Here is the problem that I am having: sometimes, my simple subtraction formula does not give me a correct result. The formula is supposed to subtract the Unsold balance (cell V27) from the Beginning Balance (cell R27).
Again, there is nothing wrong with the formula itself, as it works correctly 99% of the time, but every now and then, it just gives me an answer matching the Beginning Balance.
Also here is a link to a copy of the spreadsheet for anyone willing to take a look. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bf_QE-u36mo4AKyqg7Dk11gwoR0p5g0qveIazR83Xbk/edit?usp=sharing
Has anyone else ever had this situation happen to them? What could possibly be causing it, and more importantly, how can it be fixed to be more reliable?
Those of us who work professionally developing Sheets solutions have a few basic rules that we follow and encourage others not to break. Among them is "Never merge cells anywhere that calculations or comparisons will be (or ever might be) performed or assessed."
While what you're seeing might seem to be a glitch, I wouldn't call it that. Merged cells don't really get rid of the cells you don't see. For instance, your cell R27 doesn't "get rid of" cells S27, T27 and U27. It just holds them in memory, presumably empty. But remember that, inside Sheets' "memory," it doesn't "see" a grid. It's just 1's and 0's. When a grid is new and no cells are merged, Sheets "finds" each cell (using the best analogy I can give) counting over and down by 1's and 0's that are very small and tightly packed. Hold that thought...
Also note that many people are surprised when they have multiple complex calculations going on and get a returned answer that is off from what they expect in a cell further down the calculation chain. This is because Sheets uses floating decimal points. For instance, "one divided by three" is about 0.333. But in reality, that extends very far out: 0.33333333333333333333. But that can't go on forever or Sheets wouldn't be able to run. So at some point it gets truncated. Eventually, those extra decimal-extras will start to add up and bump numbers up (or down) by small degrees. All of this is handled by the same 1's and 0's that run everything else.
Back to merged cells. Finding and accurately "reading" merged cells gets less accurate the more of them you merge, because the process is relative to other cell locations in memory. After a while, the "floating decimal point" nature of Sheets starts to lose track, especially (I've observed) if you've got merged cells using the same sort of relative formula reference that you're using (e.g., a lot of your stacked merged cells are referencing yet another merged cell: BB2. So (again by analogy), Sheets is trying to "guess where it is by using clues." Perhaps it found something correctly in merged cells Z-AA-AB-AC23 that referenced merged cells BB2-BB3-BC2-BC3; but that time, you asked it to add merged cells R-S-T-U23 and V-W-X-Y23 and subtract merged cells V-W-X-Y24 ... where in the following set of merged cells, Z-AA-AB-AC24, you still asked for the BB2-BB3-BC2-BC3 reference but not the V-W-X-Y24 subtraction. And so on...
To add to this, you've got row heights changed all over the place. Some are set to specific heights, while others are fit to data.
You get the picture.
If Sheets is trying to find things by moving over and down from cell A1, but there is no regularity, sometimes, it just throws it's hands up and says, "Where the h-double-hockey-sticks am I anymore?" When you then reload the sheet or delete and replace the formula, it starts out at A1 again and plays Chutes and Ladders on the broken board and might shift one "floating" teeny-weeny 1 or 0 a different way from last time... and find what you wanted it to find again.
You also-also wind up with a sheet that is 56 columns across, when you probably only needed it to be 12 or 15. Likewise, you've extended the number of rows beyond what it needed to be. So you're slowing down your processing by a lot.
THE SHORT VERSION:
As nice as merged cells might look, they are a computing nightmare. I've been working with spreadsheets since they were invented, and I've literally never had a need for merged cells (though I've occasionally used them in areas that are purely aesthetic).
THE SOLUTIONS:
1.) Remake the sheet without merged cells.
-or-
2.) Try encompassing all of the merged-but-hidden cells in your calculations. This at least gives Sheets a wider net to cast. For instance, in your example above, you reference this formula:
=IF($BB$2<>"Rental","",R27-V27)
Try (where possible) to include the whole range you merged:
=IF($BB$2<>"Rental", "", SUM(R27:U27) - SUM(V27:Y27) )
Technically, you could also include all cells in the BB2-BB3-BC2-BC3 merge:
=IF(AND($BB$2<>"Rental", $BB$3<>"Rental", $BC$2<>"Rental", $BC$3<>"Rental"), "", SUM(R27:U27) - SUM(V27:Y27) )
However, try the shorter route with just the SUMmed merged ranges and see if it holds up. If so, stick with that. If not, go with referencing every cell in ranges you merged.
You've clearly put a lot of work into setting up this sheet. So I'm sure this isn't the easy answer you were hoping to hear. But I hope it does give you some direction for next steps.
For me, the simplest solution is to lock-reference the uppermost cell of the merged cells.
Instead of referencing in the top formula as B2, reference as $B$2. This way, your formulas in other cells will reference the same value as required.
USE LOCK-REFERENCING:
$B$2
In my example I am working on a Google Sheets to help me calculate how much staff I'll need for a Call Center at particular times.
My equation for the cells highlighted in blue is =1-(B40/30). The numbers next to it (on the row for 8:30) were an experiment I did in which I say =1-(B40/60), =1-(B40/90) and so forth etc. The idea is that eventually it will equal 90% (0.90) or higher at some point. I need a way to loop and add 30 everytime like I did manually in my example and count how many times I had to do that until I reached the number 90% (or whatever number I put for the highlighted green area in the picture). For example it took 5 steps to get to 90%, so this function should return 5.
How do I do this? I have tried looking into array formulas but can't seem to figure out if this is the right method or not.
Ok, then... Look at the image:
And the code:
=SUM(ArrayFormula(IF($C$4*TRANSPOSE(ROW($A$1:$A)*$C$3)/B9<$C$5,1,0)))+1
All variables are in C1:C5
Final formula is a bit complicated, so at the link below you will find step by step approach to this result (as a single formula)
Link to working copy
I hope it will help you
Edit:
If you want to simplify (based on your comment), look at this:
Code:
=SUM(ArrayFormula(IF($C$4*TRANSPOSE(ROW($A$1:$A))<B7,1,0)))+1
I have a question related to * environment in LaTeX used for spanning figure/table across two columns. It is well known that in this such figure/table is placed on the top of the page. The problem is that the Fig/Tab numbering is not taken into account so for example the two column figure has caption "Fig.4..." and right below it is one column figure with caption "Fig.3" ... which is the wrong order and in this case the figs and tabs should be automatically renumbered right?problem illutration
I am not sure that I understood the problem, but I would try to put the code for the figure spanning two columns (fig 4 in your image) before the code for the figure that it is called fig 3 in your image. That should fix it.