X-Message-Number: 28951 From: "Chris Manning" <> References: <> Subject: Sorry, it should have appeared like this Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:58:43 +1100 Sorry, my recent message #28936 should have appeared like this (assuming it does this time, of course): Message #28936 From: "Chris Manning" <> References: <> Subject: An error I just spotted Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:44:26 +1100 In message # 28617 I wrote in part: You are obviously talking about convergent geometric progressions. Yes, if your likelihood of dying in any particular year decreases in a particular way then your overall likelihood of dying can be less than unity. For example, suppose your likelihood of dying in 2007 = 1/10 2008 = 1/90 2009 = 1/810 2010 = 1/7290 etc. where each fraction is 1/9 x the previous one, then your likelihood of dying at any time in 2007 or later = (1/10)/(1 - 1/9) = 8/90 or about 1/11. _______________________ The last two lines should have read: where each fraction is 1/9 x the previous one, then your likelihood of dying at any time in 2007 or later = (1/10)/(1 - 1/9) = 9/80 or about 1/9. > Message #28936 > From: "Chris Manning" <> > References: <> > Subject: An error I just spotted > Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:44:26 +1100 > > In message # 28617 I wrote in part: > You are obviously talking about convergent geometric progressions. Yes, if > your likelihood of dying in any particular year decreases in a particular > way then your overall likelihood of dying can be less than unity. > > For example, suppose your likelihood of dying in > > 2007 = 1/10 > 2008 = 1/90 > 2009 = 1/810 > 2010 = 1/7290 etc. > > where each fraction is 1/9 x the previous one, then your likelihood of > dying > at any time in 2007 or later = (1/10)/(1 - 1/9) = 8/90 or about 1/11. > _______________________The last two lines should have read:where each > fraction is 1/9 x the previous one, then your likelihood of dying > at any time in 2007 or later = (1/10)/(1 - 1/9) = 9/80 or about 1/9. > Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28951