Actuarial Outpost November 2012 Progress Thread
 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

US PROPERTY AND CASUALTY JOBS

#11
05-24-2012, 11:21 PM
 lit041000 Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas,TX College: UT Dallas Posts: 84

go to bed son or your mother is going to get angry.
#12
05-24-2012, 11:23 PM
 go_for_it Member SOA Join Date: May 2012 College: Concordia University Alumni Posts: 80

This is my first post on AO, although i have been visiting the site regularly for the past 7-8 months. I just sat for P (and passed) making it two exams under my belt. Next step will be MLC in November.

What do you think (or have been told) what is the approx. time needed to nail this "puppy"?
__________________
P FM MLC MFE C
#13
05-25-2012, 07:57 AM
 MathDoctorG Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Studying for C? Posts: 98

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lit041000 On page 48 of AMLCR, example 3.5, how do they justify expanding .7Q70.6 = .4Q70.6+(1-.4Q70.6).3Q71 ? They say as deaths are assumed to be uniform but I don't follow
That statement should be true regardless of the model. The equation just states that the probability of dying in the next .7 of a year, having survived to age 70.6, is the same as the probability of dying in the next .4 of a year, having survived to age 70.6, plus the probability of surviving during that .4 of a year and then dying in the next .3 of a year after that. But surviving that .4 of a year is 1 minus the probability of not surviving during that time, or
$1-_{.4}q_{70.6}$,
and then the probability of dying in the .3 years after that, since the individual has now survived to age 70.6+.4, is
$_{.3}q_{71}$.
You multiply these because this is an intersection of events - survival to age 71 AND death in the next .3 after age 71, and these events are typically assumed to be independent.
__________________
C

P FM MLC

Last edited by MathDoctorG; 05-25-2012 at 12:21 PM..
#14
05-25-2012, 09:28 AM
 NBran Member SOA Join Date: Nov 2010 College: 2010 Favorite beer: Jameson Posts: 621

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lit041000 On page 48 of AMLCR, example 3.5, how do they justify expanding .7Q70.6 = .4Q70.6+(1-.4Q70.6).3Q71 ? They say as deaths are assumed to be uniform but I don't follow
You really need to learn TeX on the MLC forum
#15
05-25-2012, 02:02 PM
 lit041000 Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas,TX College: UT Dallas Posts: 84

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MathDoctorG That statement should be true regardless of the model. The equation just states that the probability of dying in the next .7 of a year, having survived to age 70.6, is the same as the probability of dying in the next .4 of a year, having survived to age 70.6, plus the probability of surviving during that .4 of a year and then dying in the next .3 of a year after that. But surviving that .4 of a year is 1 minus the probability of not surviving during that time, or $1-_{.4}q_{70.6}$, and then the probability of dying in the .3 years after that, since the individual has now survived to age 70.6+.4, is $_{.3}q_{71}$. You multiply these because this is an intersection of events - survival to age 71 AND death in the next .3 after age 71, and these events are typically assumed to be independent.

I am going to have investigate why surival and death of two mutually exclusive time intervals is independent when the probability is formulated as a conditional A | B. And then how the event of dying in the next .7 time can be decomposed into the sum. I know that is the case of the sum of two mutually exclusive events that cover the entire probability space but I don't yet see how those two events cover it. I will keep digging with this help. My best guess is that I've forgotten most of the identities from P and need to dig
#16
05-25-2012, 02:07 PM
 Gandalf Site Supporter Site Supporter SOA Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Middle Earth Posts: 26,467

Quote:
 Originally Posted by lit041000 I am going to have investigate why surival and death of two mutually exclusive time intervals is independent when the probability is formulated as a conditional A | B. And then how the event of dying in the next .7 time can be decomposed into the sum. I know that is the case of the sum of two mutually exclusive events that cover the entire probability space but I don't yet see how those two events cover it. I will keep digging with this help. My best guess is that I've forgotten most of the identities from P and need to dig
"Independent" is not really the right term, since death in interval one and death in interval 2 are mutually exclusive events.

This formula, though, is true from Course P: P(A and B)=P(A)*P(B|A).

Can be applied with A="Surviving interval 1".
#17
05-25-2012, 03:43 PM
 MathDoctorG Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Studying for C? Posts: 98

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Gandalf "Independent" is not really the right term, since death in interval one and death in interval 2 are mutually exclusive events. This formula, though, is true from Course P: P(A and B)=P(A)*P(B|A). Can be applied with A="Surviving interval 1".
Right, thanks for the clarification. Also, there is a discussion in AMLCR on page 18 and 19 regarding this issue.
__________________
C

P FM MLC
#18
05-25-2012, 07:55 PM
 lit041000 Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Dallas,TX College: UT Dallas Posts: 84

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MathDoctorG Right, thanks for the clarification. Also, there is a discussion in AMLCR on page 18 and 19 regarding this issue.
I couldn't ask for better help from the forum.

I follow now. We partition the probability space $A$ ( dying in .7 years ) into two mutually exclusive events $B$ ( dying within .4 years) and $B^{c}$ (surviving the first .4 years).

Then you get to use the following equations

$
\begin{equation} P(A)=P(A \cap B)+P(A \cap B^{c}) \end{equation}

\rm{ coming from the sum of the partitions and then...}

\begin{equation} {}_{.7}q_{70.6} = {}_{.4}q_{70} +{}_{.4}p_{70}\; {}_{.3}q_{71}\end{equation}

$

it's been a while since I've had to think through soft logic like this. the last test I studied for didn't have as much wiggle room or 'open space' in the inferences if you follow my meaning.
#19
05-25-2012, 08:28 PM
 Bama Gambler James Washer / Notes Contributor SOA Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: B'ham, AL Posts: 16,139

__________________

Now offering online seminars and live seminars for the Spring 2013 exams.

#20
05-28-2012, 06:41 AM
 GIFADE-208 Member SOA Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Randomly Studying for MFE Favorite beer: A bottled one Posts: 33

I started studying MLC today. There's gonna be little fun this summer; but it's worth it. I'm using TIA and ACTEX...plus I got some text books for referencing. I wish everybody the best in here and I hope we have discussions that increase our odds of success in Fall.
__________________
If it must be done, it must be done well - Donewell Insurance

 Thread Tools 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 12:16 PM.

 -- 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