110.8 years
(70 supercentenarians)
Graph 'gets' postponed indefinitely.
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
5 votes
Average Age of 100 validated Oldest living people
Started by
struct
, Oct 26 2006 04:59 AM
302 replies to this topic
sponsored ad
-
- Advert
#277
-
- Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
- 19,040 posts
- 2,000 ₮
- Location:Wausau, WI
- ✔
Posted 09 March 2013 - 02:49 PM
I don't like the trend. I wonder if the decrease in the number of supercentenarians is a result of the SAD catching up with society. The past supers grew up on natural food. Now we are getting into the generations that have been eating more crap and living in a society with a lot more toxicity.
#280
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 565 posts
- 10 ₮
- Location:Albania
Posted 25 May 2013 - 06:23 PM
111.4 years*
*Correction(s)/Change(s):
During the last years (and especially the last months) the number of validated 110-year-olds have decreased rapidly. According to the grg.org website the receiving and the processing/validating** older cases gets more priority. At this moment there are listed (http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM):
1 116-year-old
1 115-year-old
1 114-year-old
12 113-year-olds
13 112-year-olds
28 111-year-olds
3 110-year-olds (listed below the main list)
There is a lag in validating 110-year-olds; by the time they get validated they either are dead or turned 111 year old.
It's 'fair' to consider at least as many 110-year-olds as 111-year-olds for the average age calculation. From now on, when calculating this average age, the number of 110-year-olds will be taken equal to that of 111-year-olds.
(along with this correction) Considering that this average age is presented in 4 significant figures, i.e. e.g. 110.6 years, and that on average people are roughly 'number'.5 years old (up to now, I have added only integer years when calculating the average age) a 0.5-years (half year) addition contributed to today's age increase.
These are the corrections/changes:
1. Number of 110-year-olds = Number of 111-year-olds (28 110-year-olds were considered today),
2. +0.5 years addjustment,
[from grg.org] **The actual estimated number of worldwide living supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons.
*Correction(s)/Change(s):
During the last years (and especially the last months) the number of validated 110-year-olds have decreased rapidly. According to the grg.org website the receiving and the processing/validating** older cases gets more priority. At this moment there are listed (http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM):
1 116-year-old
1 115-year-old
1 114-year-old
12 113-year-olds
13 112-year-olds
28 111-year-olds
3 110-year-olds (listed below the main list)
There is a lag in validating 110-year-olds; by the time they get validated they either are dead or turned 111 year old.
It's 'fair' to consider at least as many 110-year-olds as 111-year-olds for the average age calculation. From now on, when calculating this average age, the number of 110-year-olds will be taken equal to that of 111-year-olds.
(along with this correction) Considering that this average age is presented in 4 significant figures, i.e. e.g. 110.6 years, and that on average people are roughly 'number'.5 years old (up to now, I have added only integer years when calculating the average age) a 0.5-years (half year) addition contributed to today's age increase.
These are the corrections/changes:
1. Number of 110-year-olds = Number of 111-year-olds (28 110-year-olds were considered today),
2. +0.5 years addjustment,
[from grg.org] **The actual estimated number of worldwide living supercentenarians is more likely to be between [300 - 450] persons.
#283
-
- Guest, Engineer
- 2,113 posts
- 1,555 ₮
Posted 28 June 2013 - 08:57 PM
It is in fact fair to consider that the number of 110-years old is at least twice as much as the number of 111 year oldIt's 'fair' to consider at least as many 110-year-olds as 111-year-olds for the average age calculation. From now on, when calculating this average age, the number of 110-year-olds will be taken equal to that of 111-year-olds.
[font='Times New Roman', ', serif} ']een [300 - 450] persons.[/font]
Indeed the death rate at those ages is >=50%. This means that the number of 110 year old 365 days ago was at best guess greater than the double of number of 111 year old today. If the number of 110 is constant or increasing (as it seems to be), the number of 110 today is even greater.
Edited by AgeVivo, 28 June 2013 - 08:57 PM.
#284
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 565 posts
- 10 ₮
- Location:Albania
Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:00 PM
111.5 years*
* AgeVivo's guesstimate seems better. Therefore, in calculating the average age of 100 validated oldest living people, these are considered (http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM):
1 115-year-old,
1 114-year-old,
11 113-year-olds,
13 112-year-olds,
30 111-year-olds,
44 110-year-olds (guesstimate).
[If it were to be done the one-month old way the average age of 100 validated oldest living people would be 111.3 years, based on:
1 115-year-old,
1 114-year-old,
11 113-year-olds,
13 112-year-olds,
30 111-year-olds,
30 110-year-olds ('one-month old' guesstimate),
14 109-year-olds (another guesstimate).]
* AgeVivo's guesstimate seems better. Therefore, in calculating the average age of 100 validated oldest living people, these are considered (http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM):
1 115-year-old,
1 114-year-old,
11 113-year-olds,
13 112-year-olds,
30 111-year-olds,
44 110-year-olds (guesstimate).
[If it were to be done the one-month old way the average age of 100 validated oldest living people would be 111.3 years, based on:
1 115-year-old,
1 114-year-old,
11 113-year-olds,
13 112-year-olds,
30 111-year-olds,
30 110-year-olds ('one-month old' guesstimate),
14 109-year-olds (another guesstimate).]
Edited by struct, 29 June 2013 - 02:02 PM.
#292
-
- Guest, Engineer
- 2,113 posts
- 1,555 ₮
Posted 22 January 2014 - 09:48 PM
indeed dS(t) = - r(t) S(t) + S(t) dWt so S(t) = exp(-integral r(t) dt + W(T)-W(0)) you take the second derivative, multiply by 3.1415 take the square root and add infinity and you get the first order approximation of the maximal human lifespan...
#293
-
- Guest
- 224 posts
- 30 ₮
- Location:Reykjavík, Ísland
- ✔
Posted 23 January 2014 - 08:33 AM
If you have a function describing the number of humans living to >100 years of age with respect to time and continuously updated, and differentiate this function you will get the speed at which people get to live to > 100, right? Differentiating it again will yield the acceleration of the function, which is the average rate of change pr. unit of time.indeed dS(t) = - r(t) S(t) + S(t) dWt so S(t) = exp(-integral r(t) dt + W(T)-W(0)) you take the second derivative, multiply by 3.1415 take the square root and add infinity and you get the first order approximation of the maximal human lifespan...
The function must have the right values.
Edited by Deep Thought, 23 January 2014 - 08:33 AM.
#294
-
- Guest, Engineer
- 2,113 posts
- 1,555 ₮
Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:00 PM
Hi Deep Thought, I had thought you were joking. No, struct counts the average top 100 from http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM It is a file about validated supercentanarians that is updated every day. Given the small number of people at such ages there, a nice function to be derivated twice wouldn't represent things well.
Edited by AgeVivo, 25 January 2014 - 10:00 PM.
#300
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 565 posts
- 10 ₮
- Location:Albania
Posted 28 February 2019 - 08:21 AM
I am expressing the Av. Age. of 100 Validated O. Living People into septenary numeral system since there are only 37 supercentenarians listed at http://www.grg.org/S...nkingsList.html and this way it requires less data extrapolation.
I.e.: 100 in septenary system = 49 in decimal system). If you don't like it this way refer to the last/past pages of this topic. For the advanced ones: expect at a later time a change of the unit of time. Wish you: All the best!
221 years (in Septenary System)
Edited by struct, 28 February 2019 - 08:22 AM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
