Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Exams - Please Limit Discussion to Exam-Related Topics > SoA/CAS Preliminary Exams > Long-Term Actuarial Math
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Long-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2018, 07:20 PM
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 311
Default Who is right - Abraham Weishaus or Coaching Actuaries?

ASM claims that the joint life failure probability in markov chain format is t q xy = t p xy (01) + t p xy (02) + t p xy (03)



CA claims it is t q xy = t p xy (01) + t p xy (02)

I think Weishaus is correct, but I would like an official statement from both Weishaus and CA. I would also like an apology from CA, since I spent so much time the past 2 days trying to reason this out and getting frustrated when I couldn't figure it out. I got a huge headache yesterday night and couldn't come into work today because of that. I am very upset. This is the 7th error I've caught in your study material.

Last edited by Liar; 08-17-2018 at 07:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2018, 07:28 PM
ao fan's Avatar
ao fan ao fan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hating the ao
Studying for EA-2L
Posts: 106,893
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar View Post
ASM claims that the joint life failure probability in markov chain format is t q xy = t p xy (01) + t p xy (02) + t p xy (03)



CA claims it is t q xy = t p xy (01) + t p xy (02)

I think Weishaus is correct, but I would like an official statement from both Weishaus and CA. I would also like an apology from CA, since I spent so much time the past 2 days trying to reason this out and getting frustrated when I couldn't figure it out. I got a huge headache yesterday night and couldn't come into work today because of that. I am very upset. This is the 7th error I've caught in your study material.
poor chad
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!!
Spoiler:
awesome, crazy, badass maltese (compliments of booger):
Spoiler:
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2018, 07:32 PM
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ao fan View Post
poor chad
You may find it amusing, but I don't.

I'm fine with struggling with a concept and spending a few days trying to wrap my head around something, but struggling with a concept because you were provided the wrong information is just infuriating. I just wasted 2 study days trying to internalize this formula, but it just wasn't clicking, so I asked my friend to see what ASM has to say about it.

I'm considering changing study materials...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:18 PM
Just Annoyed Just Annoyed is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 145
Default

Did you consider that one context might be talking about 2 exit states and the other 3? You might also get more flies with honey.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:21 PM
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Annoyed View Post
Did you consider that one context might be talking about 2 exit states and the other 3? You might also get more flies with honey.
They use the same exact 4-box Markov Chain diagram.

Exiting to states 1 or 2 represent the probability of just 1 dying and the other surviving, but it doesn't account for the case where they both die (Which would still count as a failure).

The fact that no one caught this is proof actuarial students just memorize and don't understand what they're doing. This gives credence to my post a couple days ago when I said the latter-half of this material is bullshit and made-up non-sense.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:30 PM
Just Annoyed Just Annoyed is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar View Post
They use the same exact 4-box Markov Chain diagram.

Exiting to states 1 or 2 represent the probability of just 1 dying and the other surviving, but it doesn't account for the case where they both die (Which would still count as a failure).

The fact that no one caught this is proof actuarial students just memorize and don't understand what they're doing. This gives credence to my post a couple days ago when I said the latter-half of this material is bullshit and made-up non-sense.
I think your conclusion is a stretch. When I took MLC and found a mistake in the text, I was able to prove it and figure it out. Mistakes happen and if you can't show yourself why something is wrong, you might be guilty of memorizing your way to success.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:32 PM
Just Annoyed Just Annoyed is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 145
Default

Or failure, maybe
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2018, 08:36 PM
Liar Liar is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Studying for LTAM
Posts: 311
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Annoyed View Post
I think your conclusion is a stretch. When I took MLC and found a mistake in the text, I was able to prove it and figure it out. Mistakes happen and if you can't show yourself why something is wrong, you might be guilty of memorizing your way to success.
MLC/LTAM is NOT an exam about understanding. It's about memorization and knowing when to use each technique or formula. A deep understanding of the material isn't required.

Are you able to prove Kolmogorov's forward equation without googling it? I doubt many people who passed MLC or will pass LTAM knows how.

What about Thiele's Differential Equation?

Last edited by Liar; 08-17-2018 at 08:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:34 PM
Just Annoyed Just Annoyed is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liar View Post
MLC/LTAM is NOT an exam about understanding. It's about memorization and knowing when to use each technique or formula. A deep understanding of the material isn't required.

Are you able to prove Kolmogorov's forward equation without googling it? I doubt many people who passed MLC or will pass LTAM knows how.

What about Thiele's Differential Equation?
The fact that you talk about proving those shows that you don't understand they are approximations or what they mean.

They are like euler's method from calc I.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-17-2018, 09:36 PM
Just Annoyed Just Annoyed is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 145
Default

Go ahead, insult actuaries and actuarial students while you don't grasp it yourself.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.21423 seconds with 9 queries