Actuarial Outpost Who is right - Abraham Weishaus or Coaching Actuaries?
 Register Blogs Wiki FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

 Long-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum

#1
08-17-2018, 07:20 PM
 Liar Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2018 Studying for LTAM Posts: 311
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..
#2
08-17-2018, 07:28 PM
 ao fan Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: hating the ao Studying for EA-2L Posts: 106,893 Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Liar 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.
__________________
Be prepared to be overwhelmed by cuteness!!!!
Spoiler:
awesome, crazy, badass maltese (compliments of booger):
Spoiler:
#3
08-17-2018, 07:32 PM
 Liar Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2018 Studying for LTAM Posts: 311

Quote:
 Originally Posted by ao fan 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...
#4
08-17-2018, 08:18 PM
 Just Annoyed Member SOA Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 145

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.
#5
08-17-2018, 08:21 PM
 Liar Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2018 Studying for LTAM Posts: 311

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Just Annoyed 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.
#6
08-17-2018, 08:30 PM
 Just Annoyed Member SOA Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 145

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Liar 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.
#7
08-17-2018, 08:32 PM
 Just Annoyed Member SOA Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 145

Or failure, maybe
#8
08-17-2018, 08:36 PM
 Liar Member SOA Join Date: Jul 2018 Studying for LTAM Posts: 311

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Just Annoyed 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.

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

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Liar 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.
#10
08-17-2018, 09:36 PM
 Just Annoyed Member SOA Join Date: Apr 2018 Posts: 145

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