Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

select and ultimate mortality table

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • select and ultimate mortality table

    Hello,

    I'm going through chapter 19 of the ASM manual. There's a practice problem that gives the following table

    [x] l_[x] l_[x]+1 l_[x]+2
    30 10000 9000 8000
    31 9500 8500 7500
    32 9200 8100 7000



    As part of the solution for the problem involving pure endowments, 3_p_[30] is calculated as l_[30]+3 / l_[30] = 7500/10000.

    If this is true, shouldn't this be a 2 year select and ultimate mortality table, i.e. the heading on the last column should be l_x+2 ?

  • #2
    This is the most recent section I've done in Broverman's manual, but I would think what you think.
    act justly. walk humbly. .

    Comment


    • #3
      Does it matter when the column on the far left is labeled with x or [x]? I've gone back to the select-ultimate mortality table section of ASM and I noticed that some of the problems I'm saving for review later have different column headings for the far left.

      Comment


      • #4
        19.13 is a typo.

        I don't think [x] or x matters in the left column; I copied whatever the old exam had. Probably x is better.

        Comment


        • #5
          RW: hi

          Originally posted by Krieger
          Hello,

          I'm going through chapter 19 of the ASM manual. There's a practice problem that gives the following table

          [x] l_[x] l_[x]+1 l_[x]+2
          30 10000 9000 8000
          31 9500 8500 7500
          32 9200 8100 7000



          As part of the solution for the problem involving pure endowments, 3_p_[30] is calculated as l_[30]+3 / l_[30] = 7500/10000.

          If this is true, shouldn't this be a 2 year select and ultimate mortality table, i.e. the heading on the last column should be l_x+2 ?
          A 2 year select and ultimate mortality table , It does not have l_[x]+3 and should be x +3,alternatively you can take l_[x+1]+2 as x +3 one ,there will be no different

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bati9366
            A 2 year select and ultimate mortality table , It does not have l_[x]+3 and should be x +3,alternatively you can take l_[x+1]+2 as x +3 one ,there will be no different
            That's not true. A 2 year select and ultimate mortality table will have l_[x], l_[x]+1, and l_x+2. Then you start going vertical.
            Whether you are the lion or the gazelle, when the sun comes up, you better be running.

            Comment

            Working...
            X