Quote:
Originally Posted by DamSon
These are good questions. I would also ask what the benefit of this notation is over other existing structures.
While the idea of creating standardized notation is great, there needs to be a push from the top down rather than bottom up. Consistent notation on exams as well as journals like Variance should be the starting point. Putting together another one off on notation is nice and all, but like others mentioned it's about the take up rate.

I'm not at the top, so I can't push from there. Also, a consistent notation is going to have to redo all past results in that notation. Honest question: is a journal like Variance the place for something like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamSon
I also looked through your text and I'm not quite sure what exactly it's supposed to be.

Thanks for looking through it
This is just the first part of the text, and it's supposed to mathematically explain why insurance is necessary, and once that's established, then talk about more traditional insurance and actuarial related topics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamSon
You mention a focus on notation, but there's a lack of explanation or buildup of some of your notation itself. The binomial distribution is an example, you don't really explain it and just start using that notation and it's explained later in Chapter 4, but the references to it start in Chapter 3.

Can you point me to the binomial example? The first time I mention the binomial distribution is in chapter 3, on page 17. I say
Quote:
Since L^G is the sum of two independent Bernoulli random variables, it is a binomial random variable.
L^B ~ 50,000Bin(2,0.002)

I thought Bin(N,p) was standard for representing a binomial distribution, but maybe not. I'm going to assume knowledge or probability as a prereq for the book. I want the text clear, so if anyone has constructive criticism, I welcome it. The text isn't set in stone, I want to make it better where I can. Also, maybe I am just misunderstanding what you mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamSon
Was there any plan to work with the CAS on this or are you just soliciting feedback on your text?

I emailed someone at CAS asking for some advice, but no response yet. I also looked at their site for submitting publications (
https://www.casact.org/pubs/index.cfm?fa=submission)
As far as I can tell, my work would fall under the Monograph guidelines. But as I read more about the process, I discovered that one of their requirements was that CAS gets the exclusive right, title, and interest to the paper, including the right of the CAS to edit the paper and publish the author's name in connection with the publication of the monograph.
This is not something I'm comfortable with at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamSon
My personal opinion on this is that life insurance notation is messy and we shouldn't move towards that type of notation. I'd prefer not having to draw a line under something, add a subscript and superscript alongside a hat just so it's "consistent".

If you had to design a notation, what kind of things would you want to include?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DamSon
You mentioned that notation can add value and lead to interesting results, and I agree somewhat but I think that comes from a simplification of notation rather than increasing the complexity.

I agree, increasing complexity just for the sake of complexity is dumb. That's not what I want to do, and I don't think I am. But, oversimplification isn't good either. Albert Einstein has a related quote that I like a lot.
Quote:
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.  Albert Einstein
