Actuarial Outpost Fractional Age Assumptions
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 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

 DW Simpson International Actuarial Jobs Canada  Asia  Australia  Bermuda  Latin America  Europe

 Long-Term Actuarial Math Old Exam MLC Forum

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
#1
10-09-2007, 09:01 AM
 ndaka26 Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 302
Fractional Age Assumptions

How do we deal with a fractional age assumption question (udd, constant, hyperbolic) when s+t > 1? Plugging the values into given formulas does not work.
#2
10-09-2007, 09:05 AM
 Abraham Weishaus Member SOA AAA Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 7,199

Take care of the integral part, then use the fractional age assumption for the fractional part.

For example, express $_{2.2}q_x$ as ${}_2p_x\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+2}$

or express $_{0.7}q_{x+0.5}$ as $_{0.5}p_{x+0.5}\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+1}$
#3
10-09-2007, 09:27 AM
 ndaka26 Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 302

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus Take care of the integral part, then use the fractional age assumption for the fractional part. For example, express $_{2.2}q_x$ as ${}_2p_x\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+2}$ or express $_{0.7}q_{x+0.5}$ as $_{0.5}p_{x+0.5}\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+1}$
Thanks Professor for the response. But I still don't get why we use survival propabilities when we are trying to find the probability of death/failure the expression 2.2qx = 2Px * 0.2qx+2 implies that 2.2qx = 2/2.2qx?
#4
10-09-2007, 09:50 AM
 Gandalf Site Supporter Site Supporter SOA Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Middle Earth Posts: 31,073

He was just giving you the formula for the final fractional piece. E.g., the complete expression for the second would be $_{0.7}q_{x+0.5}$ = $_{0.5}q_{x+0.5}$ + $_{0.5}p_{x+0.5}\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+1}$
#5
10-09-2007, 01:14 PM
 Jim Daniel Member SOA Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Davis, CA College: Wabash College B.A. 1962, Stanford Ph.D. 1965 Posts: 2,702

Once a probability takes you outside a single integer year of age, it's often simplest to find the equivalent set of lx values from your year-long probabilities, express your complicated probability in terms of lx values, and then interpolate as needed (linear on lx, on 1/lx, or on ln(lx)) to get those lx values.

Jim Daniel
__________________
Jim Daniel
Jim Daniel's Actuarial Seminars
www.actuarialseminars.com
jimdaniel@actuarialseminars.com
#6
10-09-2007, 01:54 PM
 ndaka26 Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 302

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gandalf He was just giving you the formula for the final fractional piece. E.g., the complete expression for the second would be $_{0.7}q_{x+0.5}$ = $_{0.5}q_{x+0.5}$ + $_{0.5}p_{x+0.5}\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+1}$
Gandalf thanks, I get it
#7
10-09-2007, 02:04 PM
 ndaka26 Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 302

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gandalf He was just giving you the formula for the final fractional piece. E.g., the complete expression for the second would be $_{0.7}q_{x+0.5}$ = $_{0.5}q_{x+0.5}$ + $_{0.5}p_{x+0.5}\,{}_{0.2}q_{x+1}$
would that be the same as qx + px * 0.2qx+1, though?
#8
10-09-2007, 02:31 PM
 Gandalf Site Supporter Site Supporter SOA Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Middle Earth Posts: 31,073

No, because $_{0.5}q_{x+0.5}$ is not the same as qx (and similarly for the term you changed to px).
#9
01-15-2019, 10:03 PM
 urbjhawk SOA Join Date: Oct 2017 Studying for LTAM Posts: 9

Can anyone help me with what u_(x+t) would be if t>1? We have that u(x+t) = q_x/(1-t*q_x) for when t<1 under the UDD assumption, but I can't seem to find a solution for when t>1.
__________________
VEE's P FM SRM IFM STAM LTAM PA
#10
01-15-2019, 10:19 PM
 Gandalf Site Supporter Site Supporter SOA Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Middle Earth Posts: 31,073

If you stop and think about it, you're asking a rather silly question. Fractional age assumptions are for the pattern of mortality between integral ages. So they tell you how to get (for example) mu_50.2 from q50. They wouldn't tell you how to get mu_51.2 (that's 50+1.2) from q50, because that's not in the year starting with age 50.

You could say mu_(50+1.2)=mu_(51.2)=mu_(51+.2) and then evaluate it under udd by the formula you already gave as q_51/(1-.2*q_51).

 Thread Tools Search this Thread Search this Thread: Advanced Search Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 07:42 AM.

 -- Default Style - Fluid Width ---- Default Style - Fixed Width ---- Old Default Style ---- Easy on the eyes ---- Smooth Darkness ---- Chestnut ---- Apple-ish Style ---- If Apples were blue ---- If Apples were green ---- If Apples were purple ---- Halloween 2007 ---- B&W ---- Halloween ---- AO Christmas Theme ---- Turkey Day Theme ---- AO 2007 beta ---- 4th Of July Contact Us - Actuarial Outpost - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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 0.21510 seconds with 9 queries