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
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Question on ASM manual problem 6.15

  1. #1
    Actuary.com - Level III Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    187

    Question on ASM manual problem 6.15

    This question is about problem 6.15 in the ASM study manual.

    In the solution the following relation is written:

    E[T(0)] = E[min(T(0),40)] + E[T(40)]*40_p_0


    I'm having a difficult time seeing how this was obtained. I thought if would be:

    E[T(0)] = E[min(T(0),40) + T(40)]

    = E[min(T(0),40)] + E[T(40)]

  2. #2
    Actuary.com - Level V Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    US/Virginia
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas H View Post
    This question is about problem 6.15 in the ASM study manual.

    In the solution the following relation is written:

    E[T(0)] = E[min(T(0),40)] + E[T(40)]*40_p_0


    I'm having a difficult time seeing how this was obtained. I thought if would be:

    E[T(0)] = E[min(T(0),40) + T(40)]

    = E[min(T(0),40)] + E[T(40)]
    What you suggested really doesn't make sense: what if T(0) < 40? how do you make sense of T(40) in this case? Is it negative? Which density function do you use when you compute the expectation?

    To prove the first formula, let the density function for T(0) be f(x). Then the density function for T(40) will be f(x+40)/s(40)
    (call this function f_1(x), i.e. f(x+40) = s(40)f_1(x)); here s(x) is the corresponding survival function for f(x). Then

    E[T(0)] =int_{0->infinity} xf(x) dx
    =int_{0->40} xf(x) dx + int_{40->infinity} xf(x) dx
    =int_{0->40} xf(x) dx + int_{0->infinity} (x+40)f(x+40) dx
    =int_{0->40} xf(x) dx + int_{0->infinity} 40f(x+40) dx
    + s(40)int_{0->infinity} xf_1(x) dx
    But the sum of the first two terms is E[min(T(0),40)] and s(40) = 40_p_0 by definition, so we are done.

    ctperng

  3. #3
    Actuary.com - Level III Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by ctperng View Post
    What you suggested really doesn't make sense: what if T(0) < 40? how do you make sense of T(40) in this case? Is it negative? Which density function do you use when you compute the expectation?
    I suggested that because I thought that if T(0) < 40 then T(40) = 0.

  4. #4
    Actuary.com - Level V Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    US/Virginia
    Posts
    554
    Of course you have every right to suggest.

    But note that

    T(40) = T(0) -40, conditional on T(0) > 40.

    When you put them (i.e. T(0) and T(40)) together in the expectation, you know you need to make sense of it.

    This may be a good question for you to think about: Let X be a random variable for a sample space S, and Y a random variable of sample space T, what does X + Y mean?

    ctperng

  5. #5
    Author, Instructor and Seminar Provider
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    97
    ctpergn is correct.

    Another way I like putting it is that you can add up unconditional expectations, but you can't mix conditions.

    E[T(0)] is the expected amount of time 0 will live. It is the sum of the expected amount of time until age 40 and the expected amount of time after 40, but unconditional!

    e_40 is the amount of time 40 will live, given that he already lived to 40. It is not right to add e_40 to E[T(0)] as you suggest, since these expressions are based on 2 different assumptions: e_40 on the assumption that you lived to 40, E[T(0)] on the assumption that you lived to 0.

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

     

Similar Threads

  1. Question on ASM manual problem 3.9
    By Thomas H in forum SOA Exam MLC - Actuarial Models, Life Contingencies - with practice exam problems
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 26th 2007, 04:45 PM
  2. quick question on this problem
    By jrn in forum SOA Exam P / CAS Exam 1 - Probability - with practice exam problems
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 10th 2006, 02:44 AM
  3. question on Exam P problem
    By SCIGEEK in forum Actuarial Exams - General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 15th 2006, 09:54 AM
  4. A question about 2003rd Ed. of Samuel Broverman's manual
    By dmitry in forum SOA Exam P / CAS Exam 1 - Probability - with practice exam problems
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 16th 2005, 07:48 PM
  5. Question about exam P Ostaszewski/ASM manual
    By robertr24 in forum Actuarial Exams - General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 23rd 2005, 04:59 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