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

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


MAS-I Old Exam S Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-27-2019, 05:39 PM
Acebelladona Acebelladona is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
College: Georgia State University, Alumni
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwimToAjit View Post
Thanks, and noted. I can assure you that TIA is useless for that section. Their formula sheet for Life Contingencies is ridiculous. It’s simply a throwaway from MLC, and the instructor refuses to change these—and other—sections.
I bought TIA since I used them for 5 and I already feel like I may not have made a good call. For 5 I barely used the videos and instead used the handouts to study, which worked alot better for me.
I figured that it would be the same way for MAS-1 but I had no idea the course would be ONLY videos. This on top of them apparently not being good for this section in particular, has me pretty concerned.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:24 AM
statman4's Avatar
statman4 statman4 is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Studying for ACAS
College: UC
Favorite beer: Oberon
Posts: 240
Default

Sitting for the 3rd time. Just received the 2019 edition of the Actex manual. Planning to use source + manual for Modeling/Time Series and just the manual for the other sections.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:32 PM
I <3 Actuarial Exams I <3 Actuarial Exams is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: NYC
Studying for Exam 5
College: NYU
Favorite beer: Lagunitas
Posts: 68
Default

I'm going source + Mahler since I already have Mahler, and I think his manual is amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-29-2019, 11:02 AM
Acebelladona Acebelladona is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
College: Georgia State University, Alumni
Posts: 51
Default

So far the TIA videos aren't that bad, they seem to be structured pretty logically and the instructor is doing a good job of explaining the topics. Granted, I've really only just started and I haven't even gotten past Poisson Processes. Really should have started studying right after passing 5 but I needed a break to get my personal life together after how much that exam drained me.

The TIA section breakdown makes the material less overwhelming in scope, though I have a feeling that impression may not hold true as I go on.

Goal is to try to push through at least two videos every day. I don't like how the base TIA schedule seems to allocate so little time for practice exams and review, so I'm trying to just get through the first pass of the material as fast as possible while still actually absorbing it and taking good notes. I have a feeling that my schedule is going to be pushing some limits when it comes to this one...
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-06-2019, 01:47 PM
stan1236 stan1236 is offline
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
College: Waterloo
Posts: 7
Default

Is it just me or are the figures in the Reliability Theory (chapter 17) section of ASM mislabelled? Specifically figures 17.7 and 17.8 - the labelling of the components does not correspond to the minimal path/cut sets defined in the examples.
I have the 1st edition, 2nd printing in case the figures don't match later versions.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:30 PM
Abraham Weishaus Abraham Weishaus is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7,250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan1236 View Post
Is it just me or are the figures in the Reliability Theory (chapter 17) section of ASM mislabelled? Specifically figures 17.7 and 17.8 - the labelling of the components does not correspond to the minimal path/cut sets defined in the examples.
I have the 1st edition, 2nd printing in case the figures don't match later versions.
Can you be more specific of what you think is wrong? For example, what labeling do you expect in Figure 17.7?
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-07-2019, 10:19 AM
stan1236 stan1236 is offline
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
College: Waterloo
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Weishaus View Post
Can you be more specific of what you think is wrong? For example, what labeling do you expect in Figure 17.7?
I expected the labelling on figure 17.7 to match the minimal paths defined in example 17B. So, four parallel lines, the first with 1,4, the second with 1,3,5, the third with 2,5 and the fourth with 2,3,4.

Take the top-most line in figure 17.7 for example. Assuming components 3 and 2 are not functioning, I'm not sure why 1,5 would be considered a functioning series structure since according to figure 17.4, the system would have to pass through component 3 to reach 5 from 1?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-07-2019, 11:49 AM
The Disreputable Dog's Avatar
The Disreputable Dog The Disreputable Dog is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Studying for MAS-1
College: Somersby School
Favorite beer: Bulldog Root Beer
Posts: 1,041
Default

When I look at figure 17.7 there are four parallel minimal paths displayed. In order from top to bottom they have components {1,4}, {1,3,5}, {2,5}, {2,3,4}. I'm also using first edition, second printing.

Figure 17.8 has a series of four parallel structures. From left to right, those parallel structures are {1,2}, {4,5}, {2,3,4}, {1,3,5}.

Do those not match your diagrams?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-07-2019, 04:11 PM
underactuary212 underactuary212 is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 58
Default

I still "LOL CAS" everytime I read something saying first column of all one's in a design matrix corresponds to a constant.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-09-2019, 11:52 AM
The Disreputable Dog's Avatar
The Disreputable Dog The Disreputable Dog is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Studying for MAS-1
College: Somersby School
Favorite beer: Bulldog Root Beer
Posts: 1,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross - Introduction to Probability Models chapter 11.1
...we need to be able to generate a random variable that is equally likely to take on any of the values 1,2,...,k. To accomplish this, let U denote a random number - that is, U is uniformly distributed over (0,1) - and note that kU is uniform on (0,k) and so

P{i - 1 < kU < i} = 1/k, i = 1, ..., k

Hence, the random variable I = [kU] + 1 will be such that

P{I = i} = P{[kU] = i - 1} = P{i - 1 < kU < i} = 1/k
Never mind, I get it. The square brackets were throwing me off. He's using [a] as the largest integer less than or equal to a.

But in general, if you wanted a random number between 1 and k that was equally likely to take any of those values, it seems like you could do two things:

1. multiply k by your uniform (0,1) and round up to the nearest integer, or
2. multiply k by your uniform (0,1), add 1, and round down to the nearest integer.

Ross only talks about the latter option. Does it matter which approach you use?
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 07:55 AM.


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 0.22808 seconds with 9 queries