• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

S2014 Q4(v) [Calculus - Integral of CDF(x)]

M

MoleMan

Member
Hi,

I'm struggling to understand (mathematically) why the integral of [1 - CDF(x)] dx is equal to the integral of [xPDF(x)] dx.

I can visualise why this is true; as the probability drops, you multiply (integrate) by x for every increment of [1 - CDF(x)] and every increment of [1 - CDF(x)] is the same as the derivative i.e. PDF(x) hence leading from [1 - CDF(x)] dx to [xPDF(x)] dx but this is the 'logical' explanation.

When attempting to do the proof i.e. integrate [xPDF(x)] dx = xCDF(x) - [CDF(x)] dx ... well you can see the right hand side is not [1 - CDF(x)] dx because of the xCDF(x) term (this should be just x).

Can someone please explain the missing step?

Best,

MoleMan
 
Hi MoleMan,

I don't think you need to worry about general statistical results to do this question. We need E[T0], so we integrate tp0 from 0 to infinity. This is perfectly fine to use in the exam, we just add up the years that they live IF they live them. I think I might know what you're asking, which is how can we justify this from the original E[ ] definition...

E[T]=integral 0 to infinity of t * tpx * mu x+t

Set u = t, du/dt = 1
dv/dt = tpx * mu x+t, v = - tpx (from Kolmogorov's fwd diff eqn, which you can prove elsewhere)

E[T]= t * - tpx evaluated between 0 and infinity (this is 0 - 0 = 0) + integral 0 to infinity of tpx

I would say this is a proof that is very unlikely to be tested looking at past papers. Much more likely is to prove the result I've used half way through, d/dt tpx = -tpx mu x+t. AND solve this to get page 32 of Tables, also a fair chance you get asked this.

Good luck!
John
 
Thanks John!

Great explanation; very CT4 focused in terms of hazard rates.

So we have:
E(t) = [t * PDF(t)] dt
E(t) = [t * tP0 * h(t)] dt
[tP0 * h(t)] dt = -tP0
[t * tP0 * h(t)] dt = t * -tP0| - [-tP0] dt


We can set t * -tP0| = 0 because we integrate between 0 and (although we’re integrating the first term between 0 and 5?)

Leading to:
E(t) = [t * tP0 * h(t)] dt = [tP0] dt

Many Thanks,
MoleMan
 
Back
Top