Best Approach to Using the Fromula Sheet

[carzymathematician]

I was just going through the formula sheet and I can't help but feeling a bit overwhelmed. Pbly someone who did 8V last year can help me out but it seems that unless you know which SN/text exactly a particular question is related to then u'll be spending quite some time looking around for the correct formula. Questions coming from the Hull/Hardy should be pretty easy to spot but as to the SNs I have no clue what material is coming from which SN. I do not pay keen attn to authors of SNs or the SN no. (VC 105 vs. VC 103) so really, how will I know where to look for what? I mean, other than combing through the entire formula sheet. If anyone could give me some tips on how to use this bloody sheet, I'd appreciate it!

[campbell]

This is what I did with the 8V formulas last year (which had only horizontal lines between groupings of formulas, and no indication of which reading they came from.... so we made our own table of contents, which you can see in old postings somewhere)

I had two copies of the formulas -- one clean, and one annotated.

On the annotated copy, for each formula, I noted the reading + the page it had come from. Also, I wrote little notes reminding myself what the different variables and parameters stood for. And I worked on problems from the Actex problem supplement.

I would switch between the annotated formulas and the "clean" sheet, always starting with the clean sheet, until I remembered the general area of where the formulas appeared. I worked to remember what the formulas generally looked like, and there are often clues in the variable names and subscripts. For example, p_{di} (p subscript di) stands for a down-and-out put.

[rekrap]

carzymathematician, did you spell it fromula in your title on purpose or are you drunk again (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1941288&postcount=145)? :crazy:

[carzymathematician]

carzymathematician, did you spell it fromula in your title on purpose or are you drunk again (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1941288&postcount=145)? :crazy:

Hahaha..not this time around Rekrap. Truth be told, I just can't spell!!:judge:

[carzymathematician]

This is what I did with the 8V formulas last year (which had only horizontal lines between groupings of formulas, and no indication of which reading they came from.... so we made our own table of contents, which you can see in old postings somewhere)

I had two copies of the formulas -- one clean, and one annotated.

On the annotated copy, for each formula, I noted the reading + the page it had come from. Also, I wrote little notes reminding myself what the different variables and parameters stood for. And I worked on problems from the Actex problem supplement.

I would switch between the annotated formulas and the "clean" sheet, always starting with the clean sheet, until I remembered the general area of where the formulas appeared. I worked to remember what the formulas generally looked like, and there are often clues in the variable names and subscripts. For example, p_{di} (p subscript di) stands for a down-and-out put.

U know, I did try putting a table of contents together but then I started to wonder whether this was a good idea or not since I was relying on something that I wasn't going to have in the exam. I do see what u're saying though - I'll give this "clean" and "dirty" sheet thing a try ;)

[Karisma]

I took 8V back in 2003, the formula sheet then followed the same order as the chapters, SN as listed in the Introductory Study Note. But I see, this years formulas sheet has the SN or Text noted and the type of formula it is is there too. Like at the top of page 4 it has Row=, I know that seems obvious, but when there are no titles, just the part after the = sign, the formula sheet is much more overwhelming. I think this sheet is GREAT!!!! We will see how much it helps though!? : )

[carzymathematician]

Would you say that it's usually the case that the formula sheet will contain alot of formulas that you will not need for the exam? I was looking at the Hardy's section on the sheet and comparing it with the formulas that JAM/Goldfarb deem as important for that same section. It seems as if there were quite a no. of formulas that were on the sheet that were not a part of the notes. Any thoughts?

[rekrap]

Would you say that it's usually the case that the formula sheet will contain alot of formulas that you will not need for the exam? I was looking at the Hardy's section on the sheet and comparing it with the formulas that JAM/Goldfarb deem as important for that same section. It seems as if there were quite a no. of formulas that were on the sheet that were not a part of the notes. Any thoughts?

Yes, the formula sheet is thorough, but it is not necessarily superfluous.

[campbell]

Yes, some are really not all that important, in that one couldn't possibly use certain formulas on the exam in the time given. Some of the formulas are simply minor variations on others (all the variants of Black-Scholes, for example), where knowing the base formula and how to alter it is sufficient.