On 4/28/2007 6:20 AM, AJ Rossini wrote: > > I agree entirely with Gabor. My advice would be to just ignore the people > who > think differently
That's fairly bad advice, in that many of the people who actually provide helpful advice are old-fashioned, and like to know who they're providing it to. If xpRt.wannabe had followed your advice a few days ago, s/he would have seen no help at all. Or maybe you meant to say, "ignore their wishes", and not "ignore their help"? > -- however, if you want those particular folks to respond, > you'll have to play by their rules. (and if you don't play by their rules, > you'll just have to ignore the consequences -- this _IS_ the internet, after > all). And if you want anyone else to respond, you may just be out of luck. Duncan Murdoch > > On Friday 27 April 2007, Gabor Grothendieck wrote: >> I don't think there is any requirement to identify yourself in any >> way nor should their be. Many people on the list are in academia >> and in those cases they probably want their name in lights but >> others may wish to have a lower profile and its common to use >> an alias on the net for privacy. >> >> On 4/27/07, xpRt.wannabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Is this an ad hominem comment or a comment of brevity? Unless my eyes >>> are playing tricks on me, I can't seem to find any language in the >>> Posting Guide on what is considered a reasonable vs. unreasonable >>> request from an anonymous poster. Kindly point me to it if it exists. >>> >>> In any case, thanks for your time and suggestion. >>> >>> On 4/26/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2007 5:21 PM, xpRt.wannabe wrote: >>>>> I made a few slight modifications to the original model in an effort >>>>> to see the inner workings of the code: >>>>> >>>>> deductible <- 1 >>>>> coverage.limit <- 2 >>>>> insurance.threshold <- deductible + coverage.limit >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> set.seed(123) >>>>> loss <- abs(rnorm(rpois(1, 5), 1, 3)) >>>>> n <- length(loss) >>>>> accept <- runif(n) < 0.8 >>>>> payout <- runif(n) < 0.999 >>>>> sum(ifelse(accept & payout, ifelse(loss > insurance.threshold, >>>>> loss - coverage.limit, pmin(loss, deductible)), 0)) >>>>> >>>>> [1] 6.188817 >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> To tease out the data as well as to see the effect of 'accept & >>>>> >>>>> payout', I did the following: >>>>>> loss >>>>> [1] 3.401663 4.570620 4.068667 4.718488 >>>>> >>>>>> accept >>>>> [1] TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE # The second loss claim is NOT accepted >>>>> by the insurance company. >>>>> >>>>>> payout >>>>> [1] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE >>>>> >>>>>> accept & payout >>>>> [1] TRUE FALSE TRUE TRUE # The second entry is FALSE because of >>>>> the second entry in 'accept.' >>>>> >>>>> Based on the inner ifelse() expression, the original loss numbers >>>>> become : 1.401663, 2.570620, 2.068667, 2.718488, respectively (which >>>>> is fine and what I wanted). >>>>> >>>>> Because the second entry in 'accept & payout' is FALSE, the second >>>>> altered loss number (2.570620) becomes 0, making sum(...) equal >>>>> 6.188817. Unfortunately this is _not_ what I want, and I apologize >>>>> for not being clear in the first place. What I want is: for any >>>>> FALSE entry, the original loss number is unaltered, as opposed to >>>>> become 0. So in the example above, the four numbers that should have >>>>> been added are: 1.401663, 4.570620, 2.068667, 2.718488, yielding >>>>> 10.759438 instead of 6.188817. >>>>> >>>>> Any further suggestions would be greatly appreciated. >>>> I'm sorry, but from an anonymous poster that's not a reasonable >>>> request. Just work it out yourself. >>>> >>>> Duncan Murdoch >>>> >>>>> On 4/26/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/26/2007 2:31 PM, xpRt.wannabe wrote: >>>>>>> Just to be sure, is what I have below the right intepretation of >>>>>>> your suggestion: >>>>>> Yes, that's what I suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>> Duncan Murdoch >>>>>> >>>>>>> deductible <- 15 >>>>>>> coverage.limit <- 75 >>>>>>> insurance.threshold <- deductible + coverage.limit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tmpf <- function() { >>>>>>> loss <- rlnorm(rpois(1, 3), 2, 5) >>>>>>> n <- length(loss) >>>>>>> accept <- runif(n) < 0.8 >>>>>>> payout <- runif(n) < 0.999 >>>>>>> sum(ifelse(accept & payout, ifelse(loss > insurance.threshold, loss >>>>>>> - coverage.limit, pmin(loss, deductible)), 0)) >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> net <- replicate(1000000, tmpf()) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/26/07, Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/26/2007 12:48 PM, xpRt.wannabe wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear List, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Below is a simple, standard loss model that takes into account >>>>>>>>> the terms of an insurance policy: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> deductible <- 15 >>>>>>>>> coverage.limit <- 75 >>>>>>>>> insurance.threshold <- deductible + coverage.limit >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> tmpf <- function() { >>>>>>>>> loss <- rlnorm(rpois(1, 3), 2, 5) >>>>>>>>> sum(ifelse(loss > insurance.threshold, loss - coverage.limit, >>>>>>>>> pmin(loss, deductible))) >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> net <- replicate(1000000, tmpf()) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, I would like to enhance the model by incorporating the >>>>>>>>> following two probabilities: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Probability of claim being accepted by the insurance company, >>>>>>>>> say, 0.8 2. Probability of payout by the insurance company, say, >>>>>>>>> 0.999 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could anyone suggest how one might do this? >>>>>>>> A general way to generate events with probability p is runif(n) < >>>>>>>> p. So I'd add >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> n <- length(loss) >>>>>>>> accept <- runif(n) < 0.8 >>>>>>>> payout <- runif(n) < 0.999 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and then require "accept & payout" before any payment at all, >>>>>>>> e.g. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sum(ifelse(accept & payout, [ your old ifelse expression ], 0)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a lot of implicit independence assumptions here; they >>>>>>>> may not be very realistic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Duncan Murdoch >>>>>>> ______________________________________________ >>>>>>> R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list >>>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >>>>>>> PLEASE do read the posting guide >>>>>>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, >>>>>>> minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. >>> ______________________________________________ >>> R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list >>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help >>> PLEASE do read the posting guide >>> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, >>> minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ______________________________________________ > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.