B Understanding Quartiles: Different Methods for Calculating and Their Purpose

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter songoku
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Calculating quartiles can yield different results depending on the method used, as demonstrated by contrasting manual calculations and a teacher's guidance. The manual method involves finding the median and then determining the middle of the upper data, while the teacher's method uses a formula based on the total number of data points. Both approaches are valid, leading to different quartile values. This raises questions about the significance of quartiles if various methods produce different results. Ultimately, understanding quartiles is important for data analysis, as they provide insights into data distribution, regardless of the calculation method.
songoku
Messages
2,497
Reaction score
400
TL;DR
Let say I have 21 data, from 1 to 21

What is the upper quartile?
If I do it manually, this is what I do:

1) find the median (which is 11)

2) find the middle data of the "upper data" (data to the right of median), which will be the middle between 16th and 17th data:
$$\frac{16+17}{2}=16.5$$But I got this note from my teacher:
1622037030666.png


Using that method:
1) find ##\frac 3 4## of n, which is 15.75

2) round up ##\frac{3}{4}n## , which is 16

3) pick 16th data, which is 16I get two different results. Which one is correct?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This Wikipedia page describes four different ways to calculate quartiles.
 
Mark44 said:
This Wikipedia page describes four different ways to calculate quartiles.
So all methods are correct eventhough the results are different? If yes, it means that the value of the quartiles are not really important, so what is the purpose of finding quartiles?

Thanks
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
There is a nice little variation of the problem. The host says, after you have chosen the door, that you can change your guess, but to sweeten the deal, he says you can choose the two other doors, if you wish. This proposition is a no brainer, however before you are quick enough to accept it, the host opens one of the two doors and it is empty. In this version you really want to change your pick, but at the same time ask yourself is the host impartial and does that change anything. The host...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.