>Yep. If you make it to ten, you have a good chance of making it to
>50. Of course by then you've lost all your teeth...
>
>I would quarrel with the "single-figure factoid": I still haven't
>figured out a better one number to start with than e(0).
>
>Brad
I can't think of a better one number to sum up economic production than GDP, but we all know that that is unscientific and hoodwinks poor people .... I think that e(0) is a bad number to choose because the law of iterated expectations doesn't apply -- e(0) != e0(e(10)). And the distortion is worse becasue you're taking the expectation too near the point in life when most fatalities occur. I'd choose e(n) where n was the modal age at death.
dd
___________________________________________________________________________ _____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
IMMEDIATELY on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------