In the 2nd sum, t = 1 and 500 are out of format. Before the 4th sum, rlow should be r_{low}. In the 4th sum, 10100 should be 10^100, and should be on top of the summation symbol.
You say r_0 is the starting risk, but the above implies r(0) = r_0 + r_inf. So I think r_0 should be replaced by r_0 - r_inf above, such that r(0) = r_0. I do not think this is relevant because I guess r_0 >> r_inf, so r_0 - r_inf is roughly equal to r_0.
When discussing the value and eventually the cost effectiveness of risk mitigation, a useful and more realistic efficacy f is one basis point
f refers to a relative reduction in risk (not absolute), so I think you mean 0.01 % above (not āone basis pointā). 1 basis point refers to an absolute variation of 0.01 pp.
Thank you very much for your words Vasco! And thank you for catching those formatting typos, Iāve corrected them now.
In order:
Two underscores seemed to have got lost in translation to markdown! Should be there now.
Youāre right to point out that, in this context,r(0)=r0ārāār0 but it isnāt exactly r0. I was using that approximation for the exposition but should have made that clearer, especially in the code. Iāve made minor corrections to reflect this.
Iāll also improve the phrasing to make the sentence you mentioned on f=0.0001 clearer.
Great post! Some nitpicks...
In the 2nd sum, t = 1 and 500 are out of format. Before the 4th sum, rlow should be r_{low}. In the 4th sum, 10100 should be 10^100, and should be on top of the summation symbol.
You say r_0 is the starting risk, but the above implies r(0) = r_0 + r_inf. So I think r_0 should be replaced by r_0 - r_inf above, such that r(0) = r_0. I do not think this is relevant because I guess r_0 >> r_inf, so r_0 - r_inf is roughly equal to r_0.
f refers to a relative reduction in risk (not absolute), so I think you mean 0.01 % above (not āone basis pointā). 1 basis point refers to an absolute variation of 0.01 pp.
Thank you very much for your words Vasco! And thank you for catching those formatting typos, Iāve corrected them now.
In order:
Two underscores seemed to have got lost in translation to markdown! Should be there now.
Youāre right to point out that, in this context,r(0)=r0ārāār0 but it isnāt exactly r0. I was using that approximation for the exposition but should have made that clearer, especially in the code. Iāve made minor corrections to reflect this.
Iāll also improve the phrasing to make the sentence you mentioned on f=0.0001 clearer.
Thanks again!