160:
score has a 75th percentile, that means that 75% of the population of examinees scored worse/lower than John or equal to John. That is my base understanding and the premise of my question. As such, a percentile (by definition) can never be 100% (because John himself is a part of the population of examinees and John cannot score lower than John). So, the "highest" that a percentile can be is 99.999999999% or so, but it can never actually reach 100%. We normally think of exam scores as 0 to 100, and we normally think of percentages as 0% to 100%. While exam scores and percentages can be higher than 100 or 100%, nonetheless, they are
368:
millions, billions, etc.). Using the system of words, what is the largest number that actually has a verbal "name"? Thanks. Also, when we get to very large numbers, is there simply some type of systematic naming scheme -- such that there are infinitely many names (similar to what they do in naming "more new" elements on the
Periodic Table)? Thank you. (
664:
167:
Scenario A: John scores 88% and there are nine other examinees that all have scored 75% on the exam. In rank order, the scores look like this: 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 88. Thus nine examinees out of ten (i.e., 90% of the examinees) have scored lower than or equal to John. Thus,
108:
I've got a bird bath to hook onto the side of his cage, but he just cocks his head and looks at it as though to say "what the hell is that thing?". He won't go into the water at all. I've tried putting a lettuce leaf in the bath to tempt him in but all he does is stand on the lip of the bath and lean
367:
number? By that, I mean verbally (words), not numerically. In other words, if we use numbers, we can say that a very big number is 100 raised to the 100 power. And we can do that with any numbers we so choose. However, we also verbally "name" these numbers with words (i.e., hundreds, thousands,
330:
Note that percentiles are really only appropriate for cases where there are thousands of people being compared, like the SATs. For example, with two people taking a test, would you say the lower has 0% and the upper has 100%, even if the two had only a one question answered differently ? In the
159:
Can someone explain and/or help me understand the following concept about percentiles. Thank you. Let's say that John takes an exam, and let's just say that it is the SAT exam. By definition, a percentile is the percentage of examinees that score at or below John's score. So, if John's scaled
281:
Yes, my method can range from 0 to 100 (including the 100), as would be "intuitively" expected, whereas the current definition disallows the actual 100 value. That is pretty much my whole point. You are correct also about my mis-statements regarding "lower than or equal to". Thanks.
306:
The reason for using < rather than ≤ comes down to dealing with those middle values. It ends up being a bit more complicated than simple counting with cases like the 75 75 75 75 90 instance (since there is some assumed error in each term so that 75 really means in the range
460:
236:
Tesseran - why does my system not allow the 0th percentile? Example: John gets a score of 80% on the test and the other nine people in the class get a score of 90%. The data is: 80 - 90 - 90 - 90 - 90 - 90 - 90 - 90 - 90 - 90. Therefore, zero out of the nine
171:
Scenario B: Use the same data as
Scenario A. Why can't percentiles be defined such that nine examinees out of nine (i.e., 100% of the examinees) have scored lower than or equal to John? So that John's percentile score is 100. In other words, in plain English,
190:
John (n) ...? I don't know if I have explained this clearly, but I hope that someone gets the gist of my question. Why can't percentiles go up to and include the 100%, which would seem to make much more common sense or intuitive sense ...? Thanks.
362:
Due to the concept of infinity, there is no "biggest" or "largest" number that exists. Since we can always simply add one to any number, there are infinitely many numbers ... i.e., numbers continue to infinity. My question is: what is the largest
206:
is defined the way it is as it fits with what you would expect for the 25th and 50th percentile, using senario B your would not have 50% below the 50th percentile. You can have the 100th percentile which is everybody.
692:
Yeah, as far as largest named number with an application goes, I think Graham's number takes the cake. But the question of the largest number where every number less than it is also named is an interesting question.
109:
forwards, stretching out to his full length to grab the edge of it, then pulls it out onto the floor of the cage. I've tried showering him with a plant mister a few times but he absolutely HATES that. Any tips? --
658:{\displaystyle 10^{\scriptscriptstyle 10\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000\,000}: -->
259:
I'm sorry, you're correct. I misunderstood your suggestion. I agree with Salix alba's comment. (By the way, you repeatedly use "lower than or equal to John" above (for example) where you mean "lower than".)
66:
59:
45:
55:
51:
425:
182:
So, in
Scenario A, the ratio or fraction is 9/10 = 90%. In Scenario B, the ratio or fraction is 9/9 = 100%. So, in other words, why can't the denominator be every examinee
331:
case of thousands, the precise definition is less important, as a single top scorer will get 100% by one method and 99.99% by another, which will round to 100%, anyway.
25:
223:
Just observe that the current system allows for the 0th percentile, while disallowing the 100th; your proposal would allow the 100th but disallow the 0th.
85:
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
164:
on the value 100. So, I guess my question is ... why are percentiles not defined as going from 0 to 100 (i.e., actually including the 100 value)?
37:
21:
168:
John's percentile score is 90. In other words, in plain
English ... out of everyone who took the exam, 90% did worse than John.
241:
examinees (excluding John) scored below John. Thus, 0/9 = 0% = 0th percentile. No? Am I missing some concept? Thanks. (
768:
759:
745:
726:
716:
697:
687:
670:
444:
431:
391:
372:
348:
335:
323:
286:
264:
245:
227:
216:
195:
149:
123:
113:
709:
86:
17:
145:
This would have been an excellent question for the
Science Desk. BTW, what makes you think he needs a bath ?
380:
723:
667:
369:
345:
320:
283:
242:
192:
441:
428:
137:
110:
212:
765:
742:
401:
713:
398:
According to a record book of mine, the largest named number is 'milli-millillion', which equals
722:
Thanks, all, for the input -- and for the relevant links. All very interesting. Thank you. (
755:
680:
384:
120:
133:
208:
694:
437:
388:
261:
224:
764:
Yeah, that works. (I looked at this triangle, too (well, with (4,0) and (0,3))...)
737:
Do there exist triangles in the
Cartesian plane with integer vertices such that the
179:
scored below John ... (since, obviously, John did not and cannot score below John).
752:
684:
332:
146:
741:
of the triangle also has integer coordinates? If so, can you give an example?
454:
203:
74:
738:
751:
What about the triangle with vertices (0,0), (3,0) and (0,4)? --
79:
Welcome to the
Knowledge Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
379:
While I can't say anything about "biggest," you might find
470:
464:
404:
319:
Thanks for the comments -- I appreciate the input. (
657:
419:
136:? Perhaps you could make a scaled down version.
344:True, that's a good point, StuRat. Thanks. (
8:
649:
469:
463:
411:
403:
119:Have you tried taking its reciprocal? -
49:
36:
634:
629:
624:
619:
614:
609:
604:
599:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
554:
549:
544:
539:
534:
529:
524:
519:
514:
509:
504:
499:
494:
489:
484:
479:
474:
104:How can I get my budgie to take a bath?
65:
43:
186:John (n-1) instead of every examinee
7:
733:Incenters with integer coordinates
32:
420:{\displaystyle \ 10^{3000003}}
1:
33:
787:
710:Interesting number paradox
453:Largest named number is a
349:06:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
336:03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
150:03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
769:22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
760:22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
746:21:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
727:00:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
717:08:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
698:08:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
688:07:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
671:07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
445:23:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
432:22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
392:19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
373:18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
324:00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
287:16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
265:06:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
246:01:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
228:22:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
217:19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
196:18:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
124:07:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
114:07:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Reference desk
660:
421:
381:Names of large numbers
87:current reference desk
665:10^{3000003}}" /: -->
661:
422:
462:
402:
461:10^{3000003}}": -->
655:
639:
635:
630:
625:
620:
615:
610:
605:
600:
595:
590:
585:
580:
575:
570:
565:
560:
555:
550:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
417:
757:
406:
93:
92:
73:
72:
778:
756:
666:
663:
662:
656:
654:
653:
641:
640:
426:
424:
423:
418:
416:
415:
405:
309:
308:
75:
38:Mathematics desk
34:
786:
785:
781:
780:
779:
777:
776:
775:
735:
681:Graham's number
645:
465:
459:
458:
407:
400:
399:
385:Graham's number
360:
157:
106:
101:
30:
29:
28:
12:
11:
5:
784:
782:
774:
773:
772:
771:
766:Dr. Sunglasses
743:Dr. Sunglasses
734:
731:
724:JosephASpadaro
720:
719:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
674:
673:
668:211.28.121.144
652:
648:
644:
638:
633:
628:
623:
618:
613:
608:
603:
598:
593:
588:
583:
578:
573:
568:
563:
558:
553:
548:
543:
538:
533:
528:
523:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
493:
488:
483:
478:
473:
468:
450:
449:
448:
447:
414:
410:
395:
394:
370:JosephASpadaro
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
346:JosephASpadaro
339:
338:
321:JosephASpadaro
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
284:JosephASpadaro
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
252:
251:
250:
249:
243:JosephASpadaro
231:
230:
220:
219:
193:JosephASpadaro
156:
153:
143:
142:
141:
140:
138:Lanfear's Bane
127:
126:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
91:
90:
82:
81:
71:
70:
64:
48:
41:
40:
31:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
783:
770:
767:
763:
762:
761:
758:
754:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
732:
730:
728:
725:
718:
715:
714:Keenan Pepper
711:
707:
706:
699:
696:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
669:
659:10^{3000003}}
650:
646:
642:
636:
631:
626:
621:
616:
611:
606:
601:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
561:
556:
551:
546:
541:
536:
531:
526:
521:
516:
511:
506:
501:
496:
491:
486:
481:
476:
471:
466:
456:
452:
451:
446:
443:
439:
438:Knuth -yllion
436:PS check out
435:
434:
433:
430:
412:
408:
397:
396:
393:
390:
387:interesting.
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
374:
371:
366:
358:Large Numbers
357:
350:
347:
343:
342:
341:
340:
337:
334:
329:
328:
327:
325:
322:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
288:
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
266:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
247:
244:
240:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
226:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
205:
201:
200:
199:
197:
194:
189:
185:
180:
178:
175:
169:
165:
163:
154:
152:
151:
148:
139:
135:
132:What about a
131:
130:
129:
128:
125:
122:
118:
117:
116:
115:
112:
103:
98:
96:
88:
84:
83:
80:
77:
76:
68:
61:
57:
53:
47:
42:
39:
35:
27:
23:
19:
736:
721:
364:
361:
318:
238:
187:
183:
181:
176:
173:
170:
166:
161:
158:
144:
107:
94:
78:
442:65.31.80.94
429:65.31.80.94
155:Percentiles
121:Rainwarrior
111:84.68.70.40
26:Mathematics
455:googolplex
209:Salix alba
204:percentile
708:See also
679:See also
188:including
134:dust bath
50:<<
739:incenter
695:J Elliot
389:J Elliot
262:Tesseran
225:Tesseran
202:I guess
174:everyone
24: |
22:Archives
20: |
753:Lambiam
651:3000003
413:3000003
89:pages.
685:CiaPan
333:StuRat
184:except
147:StuRat
99:July 7
67:July 8
46:July 6
643:: -->
365:named
239:other
162:based
69:: -->
63:: -->
62:: -->
44:<
16:<
683:. --
383:and
213:talk
177:else
56:July
712:. —
637:000
632:000
627:000
622:000
617:000
612:000
607:000
602:000
597:000
592:000
587:000
582:000
577:000
572:000
567:000
562:000
557:000
552:000
547:000
542:000
537:000
532:000
527:000
522:000
517:000
512:000
507:000
502:000
497:000
492:000
487:000
482:000
477:000
457:. :
60:Aug
52:Jun
729:)
647:10
472:10
467:10
440:.
427:.
409:10
375:)
326:)
215:)
207:--
198:)
58:|
54:|
351:)
289:)
282:(
248:)
211:(
191:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.