Actuarial Discussion Forum - Professional Discussions for Professional Actuaries

Actuarial Jobs from Actuary.com    Submit Your Actuarial Resume Anonymously
Other Insurance Jobs    Other Financial Jobs    Other Health Jobs    Other IT Jobs    Other Jobs, Careers and Employment    Actuarial News
Directory of Actuarial Exam Study Courses - Online    Directory of Actuarial Exam Study Materials    Directory of Actuarial Exam Study Seminars - Live
Directory of Actuarial Recruiters    Directory of Actuarial Schools    Actuarial Grads Network    Actuary.com 



D.W. Simpson & Co, Inc. - Worldwide Actuarial Jobs
Life Jobs 
Health Jobs Pension Jobs Casualty Jobs Salary Apply
Pauline Reimer, ASA, MAAA - Pryor Associates
Nat'l/Int'l Actuarial Openings: Life P&C Health Pensions Finance
ACTEX Publications and MadRiver Books
Serving students worldwide for over 40 years
Advertise Here - Reach Actuarial Professionals
Advertising Information
Actuarial Careers, Inc. - Actuarial Jobs Worldwide
Search positions by geographic region, specialization, or salary
Ezra Penland Actuarial Recruiters - Top Actuarial Jobs
Salary Surveys  Apply Online   Bios   Casualty   Health   Life   Pension

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Prob. For Risk Mgmt 3-47 (Elements of Probability)

  1. #1
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    6

    Prob. For Risk Mgmt 3-47 (Elements of Probability)

    I have a couple of questions on this problem.
    P[AuB]=0.7 and P[AuB']=0.9
    Determine P[A]

    I understand the substitution via Disjunction Rule to:

    P[AuB]=P[A]+P[B]-P[AnB]
    P[AuB']=P[A]+P[B']-P[AnB']

    Then combining the terms to:

    P[AuB]+P[AuB']=2P[A]+(P[B]+P[B'])-(P[AnB]+P[AnB'])

    But, the next part seems like hand waving on the right-hand side of the equation.

    0.7+0.9=2P[A]+1-P[(AnB)u(AnB')]

    How do we get to 1-P[(AnB)u(AnB')] from (P[B]+P[B'])-(P[AnB]+P[AnB'])?

    The next step suggests:

    1.6=2P[A]+1-P[A] and subsequently P[A]=0.6

    Also, is there any notable difference between B' (B prime?) and say C or any other variable. Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    21
    I avoided that messy equation altogether. Try taking the complements of AuB and AuB', it's a much smoother route.

  3. #3
    Actuary.com - Level III Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by jchaney View Post
    i have a couple of questions on this problem.
    P[aub]=0.7 and p[aub']=0.9
    determine p[a]

    i understand the substitution via disjunction rule to:

    P[aub]=p[a]+p[b]-p[anb]
    p[aub']=p[a]+p[b']-p[anb']

    then combining the terms to:

    P[aub]+p[aub']=2p[a]+(p[b]+p[b'])-(p[anb]+p[anb'])

    but, the next part seems like hand waving on the right-hand side of the equation.

    0.7+0.9=2p[a]+1-p[(anb)u(anb')]

    how do we get to 1-p[(anb)u(anb')] from (p[b]+p[b'])-(p[anb]+p[anb'])?

    The next step suggests:

    1.6=2p[a]+1-p[a] and subsequently p[a]=0.6

    also, is there any notable difference between b' (b prime?) and say c or any other variable. Thanks in advance.
    (p[b]+p[b'])=1

  4. #4
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    6

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by BeanCounter View Post
    (p[b]+p[b'])=1
    Why must (p[b]+p[b'])=1? I don't think this is the case. If so, please kindly support.

  5. #5
    Actuary.com - Posting Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,105
    Quote Originally Posted by jchaney View Post
    Why must (p[b]+p[b'])=1? I don't think this is the case. If so, please kindly support.
    By definition P(B') = 1 - P(B) therefore P(B) + [1 - P(B)] = 1

    Think about it logically, probability of an event happening OR probability of an even NOT happening HAS TO BE 100% i.e. either it does or does not happen.

  6. #6
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    6

    Hmm?

    If one has only three choices for breakfast combination.
    A = Toast
    B = Eggs
    and B' = Ham

    Then we could say that there is a 70% chance of either toast or eggs for breakfast, and 90% chance of toast or ham. Further 30% not toast nor eggs or 10% not toast nor ham. But, what of the those who have toast and eggs, or toast and ham. By this we are saying those had ham are equal to everyone less those who had eggs.

    I get P(a) + p(b) - P(anb) = 1 and P(a) + p(b') - P(anb') = 1
    but, for p(b)+ p(b') = 1 would not p(anb) + p(a) equal to p(b') and consequently p(a) + p(anb') = p(b)? Where is my logic flawed?

  7. #7
    Actuary.com - Level III Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by jchaney View Post
    If one has only three choices for breakfast combination.
    A = Toast
    B = Eggs
    and B' = Ham

    Then we could say that there is a 70% chance of either toast or eggs for breakfast, and 90% chance of toast or ham. Further 30% not toast nor eggs or 10% not toast nor ham. But, what of the those who have toast and eggs, or toast and ham. By this we are saying those had ham are equal to everyone less those who had eggs.

    I get P(a) + p(b) - P(anb) = 1 and P(a) + p(b') - P(anb') = 1
    but, for p(b)+ p(b') = 1 would not p(anb) + p(a) equal to p(b') and consequently p(a) + p(anb') = p(b)? Where is my logic flawed?
    In your example:
    Equation 1: P(a) + p(b) - P(anb) = 1
    Equation 2: P(b)+ P(b') = 1

    Then, we get P(b') = P(a) - P(anb) but not p(anb) + p(a)

    Test:
    If a and b are mutually exclusive, P(anb) = 0. There two equations are still consistent.

    Your another example is wrong.

    If B = eggs, then B' mean no eggs.

    If one three choices(A, B and C) for breakfast combinations, A, B and C are three different items.
    Last edited by BeanCounter; April 12th 2012 at 11:29 PM.

  8. #8
    Actuary.com - Posting Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,105
    Quote Originally Posted by jchaney View Post
    If one has only three choices for breakfast combination.
    A = Toast
    B = Eggs
    and B' = Ham

    Then we could say that there is a 70% chance of either toast or eggs for breakfast, and 90% chance of toast or ham. Further 30% not toast nor eggs or 10% not toast nor ham. But, what of the those who have toast and eggs, or toast and ham. By this we are saying those had ham are equal to everyone less those who had eggs.

    I get P(a) + p(b) - P(anb) = 1 and P(a) + p(b') - P(anb') = 1
    but, for p(b)+ p(b') = 1 would not p(anb) + p(a) equal to p(b') and consequently p(a) + p(anb') = p(b)? Where is my logic flawed?
    I'm not sure if you're a bad troll or if you are really this unprepared for 1/P...

  9. #9
    Actuary.com - Level I Poster
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    6
    Thank you BeanCounter and NoMoreExams for your willingness to reply. I was not aware that P(b') is the complement to p(b). If you kindly refer to my initial post then you will see I did ask the question is there anything special about b' (B prime), or is just another variable. I've been under the premise that it treated another variable separate from A and B. I've reviewed the text I am studying have not crossed the point where B' is defined in such terms. Is P(b') the same as ~P(b). That notation is used in my text.

    I can understand that why my most recent post seems so bizarre, but I would ask that for the respect of the forum you do not make insults to my intentions nor intellect. I believe this is the correct forum to ask such questions.

    What part of the problem defines a and b as mutually exclusive or is it just assumed? The solution to this problem lists part of the step as P[aub]=p[a]+p[b]-p[anb], therefore I presumed that the events were not mutually exclusive.
    Last edited by jchaney; April 13th 2012 at 01:41 AM.

  10. #10
    Actuary.com - Level III Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by jchaney View Post
    Thank you BeanCounter and NoMoreExams for your willingness to reply. I was not aware that P(b') is the complement to p(b). If you kindly refer to my initial post then you will see I did ask the question is there anything special about b' (B prime), or is just another variable. I've been under the premise that it treated another variable separate from A and B. I've reviewed the text I am studying have not crossed the point where B' is defined in such terms. Is P(b') the same as ~P(b). That notation is used in my text.

    I can understand that why my most recent post seems so bizarre, but I would ask that for the respect of the forum you do not make insults to my intentions nor intellect. I believe this is the correct forum to ask such questions.

    What part of the problem defines a and b as mutually exclusive or is it just assumed? The solution to this problem lists part of the step as P[aub]=p[a]+p[b]-p[anb], therefore I presumed that the events were not mutually exclusive.
    Prob. For Risk Mgmt 3-47 is directly from SOA sample questions for exam P. Therefore, the notations used in the textbook may be different from notations in those problems.

    I did not say whether any events in your original question is mutually exlusive. I am referring to one (quoted below) of your examples and you should notice the word, "if", and which of your message is quoted.

    Quote Originally Posted by jchaney View Post
    I get P(a) + p(b) - P(anb) = 1 and P(a) + p(b') - P(anb') = 1
    but, for p(b)+ p(b') = 1 would not p(anb) + p(a) equal to p(b') and consequently p(a) + p(anb') = p(b)? Where is my logic flawed?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 11th 2012, 03:10 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 11th 2012, 03:10 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 7th 2011, 02:23 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 22nd 2011, 04:30 PM
  5. One more probability prob
    By Anu Dhanuka in forum SOA Exam P / CAS Exam 1 - Probability - with practice exam problems
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: July 5th 2007, 03:05 PM

Bookmarks - Share

Bookmarks - Share

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts