Yes. In the field of "ordered statistics" it makes no difference if data is ranked smallest to highest or vice-versa, but the convention is to consider rank = 1 the smallest value and rank = m the largest value of m values.
I'll give this a go...A nibbleA byteA BitA megabyteA gigabyteA TerabyteAn Exabyteis that what you were looking for?THE CORRECT ANSWER IS RANKING ORDER
Order of planets from largest to smallest: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury and smallest Pluto.
Soil consists of four materials: (In order from largest to smallest)Plant decomposition and animal wasteSandSiltClay
There is no largest nor smallest. All you need is another prefix to increase [or decrease] the previous largest [smallest] by a factor of 1000.
Done!
Range what about ranking?
Range what about ranking?
range ranking
I'll give this a go...A nibbleA byteA BitA megabyteA gigabyteA TerabyteAn Exabyteis that what you were looking for?THE CORRECT ANSWER IS RANKING ORDER
From smallest to largest is known as putting data in ascending order.
In order from smallest to largest these are arranged: 0.02 0.19 0.2
Asia, Africa, South America. that is the order from largest to smallest.
The range is the difference between the largest and smallest observations.
Order of planets from largest to smallest: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury and smallest Pluto.
Largest and smallest are both size descriptors so you have to look at their size before putting them in the order of largest to smallest. It's the only way to do it.
Soil consists of four materials: (In order from largest to smallest)Plant decomposition and animal wasteSandSiltClay
There is no largest nor smallest. All you need is another prefix to increase [or decrease] the previous largest [smallest] by a factor of 1000.