• 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.

Time-inhomogeneous Marriage model

S

sfischer

Member
In the Time-inhomogeneous Marriage model (Chapter 6/9.1). It sets the integral for P[Xt=M,Ct>w|Xs=B] as being from w to t-s (which given the nature of integrals is the same as from s to t-w). Are they saying then that P[Xt=M,Ct>w|Xs=B] is the same as P[Xt-w=M|Xs=B] - ie. we are only really concerned with going from B at time s to M at time t-w. But that would imply the length of time you are married doesn't come into the equaltion.

Can someone shed some light on this one - thanks.
 
It looks to me as though you've changed the limits on the integral and then assumed it will have the same value. This won't automatically be the case, and isn't the case here as the integrand is a function of time (so integrating over a different interval will give a different answer). So, I don't think your logic holds.

In particular, v in the integral shown is a measure of duration, and it appears that you've switched it to be a measure of time. Redefining your variable in this way would also affect the terms being integrated.
 
You're right - I managed to confuse myself there. I can see later on in the text, where we change the integral limits, we also change the function to include those changes which makes sense.
 
Back
Top