Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
> In the standard foundations of probability theory, as laid out by Kolmogorov, we can then model these events and random variables by introducing a sample space (which will be a probability space) to capture all the ambient sources of randomness; events are then modeled as measurable subsets of this sample space, and random variables are modeled as measurable functions on this sample space. This matches the definiti…
Foundations of probability theory
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#12Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
Out of curiosity, what's the background that lets you be so dismissive of a Fields Medal winner? At this point I see a blog post written by a well respected mathematician whom I feel comfortable trusting and it's being brushed aside by I don't know who.
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#13Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day. Could you expand on this? I'm reading his post now, but from the outside, it seems unlikely that Terry got the concepts completely wrong, and more likely that he's using slightly different definitions for the concepts than you are expecting.
That can be a real pain for students trying to learn. But, be warned: A lot of people work with probability, but only a tiny fraction ever had a course in graduate probability. So, eventually have to learn to put up with, and sometimes rewrite, some of what is written that is not very precise.
Here are the accepted definitions:
Take a non-empty set, usually denoted by Omega, and call it the sample space or the set of trials.
Take a collection of subsets of Omega, usually denoted by script F, and call it the set of events. Have at least enough subsets of Omega in the set of events script F so that script F will be a sigma algebra. So, script F has to have as an element the empty set, be closed under relative complements, and be closed under countable unions.
We want all that for probability theory. We want countably infinite so that we can discuss, say, the event that a coin never or always comes up heads. We don't want uncountably infinite because it would create a big mess in the theory.
Then the ordered pair (Omega, script F) is called a measurable space -- it doesn't have a measure yet but soon will.
On that measurable space, define a positive measure P so that P( Omega ) = 1. Then P is a probability measure on the measurable space.
A probability space is the triple ( Omega, script F, P ).
Intuitively, a measure assigns to each event A in script F a non-negative real number P(A). A signed measure permits negative values. And of course at times want a measure that yields complex numbers.
Measure theory is in, say, P. Halmos, Measure Theory. The back of Halmos has a really nice introduction to probability theory, the Kolmogorov three series theorem in stochastic processes, etc. For more in stochastic processes there is, of course, the classic J. Doob, Stochastic Processes. Halmos was a Doob student and then served as an assistant to von Neumann at the Institute for Advanced Study. From that he wrote Halmos, Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces, a finite dimensional introduction to Hilbert space. Later at University of Chicago Halmos worked in mathematical statistics and made the fundamental contribution to sufficient statistics. IIRC, it was at Chicago that Halmos wrote Measure Theory.
Great details on measure theory and much more are in, say, H. Royden, Real Analysis and W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis.
To narrow measure theory to probability theory, use the famous texts by the authors I listed, Loeve, .... Royden and Rudin are terrific prerequisites to Loeve, etc.
Commonly the sigma algebra of events script F is the smallest sigma algebra that contains as a subset a topology, that is, a collection of open sets, on the sample space Omega.
That's all standard, beginning stuff in graduate probability -- ah, the only kind should bother with anyway!
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#14Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
Out of curiosity, what's the background that lets you be so dismissive of a Fields Medal winner? At this point I see a blog post written by a well respected mathematician whom I feel comfortable trusting and it's being brushed aside by I don't know who.
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#15Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
> In the standard foundations of probability theory, as laid out by Kolmogorov, we can then model these events and random variables by introducing a sample space (which will be a probability space) to capture all the ambient sources of randomness; events are then modeled as measurable subsets of this sample space, and random variables are modeled as measurable functions on this sample space. This matches the definiti…
is, in a word, wrong. The sample space will be part of a probability space but will not "be a probability space".
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#16Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
Out of curiosity, what's the background that lets you be so dismissive of a Fields Medal winner? At this point I see a blog post written by a well respected mathematician whom I feel comfortable trusting and it's being brushed aside by I don't know who.
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#17Looked at the text to be used, Durrett. There's more and with higher quality in any of M. Loeve, J. Neveu, K. Chung, and L. Breiman. For what Tao wrote on his page about determinism or whatever on that page -- just f'get about that. And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day.
Out of curiosity, what's the background that lets you be so dismissive of a Fields Medal winner? At this point I see a blog post written by a well respected mathematician whom I feel comfortable trusting and it's being brushed aside by I don't know who.
I learned from a star student of E. Cinlar, long at Princeton. We used Royden, Rudin, Neveu, and Chung, and there were some nice topics in the course not in any of those texts, e.g., the Lindeberg-Feller version of the central limit theorem, a really nice, astounding, result on an envelope for Brownian motion, more on ergodic theory, some on additive processes, and more. Super nice course.
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what he wrote, confusing a sample space and a probability space, just say that he had a bad day that day. Could you expand on this? I'm reading his post now, but from the outside, it seems unlikely that Terry got the concepts completely wrong, and more likely that he's using slightly different definitions for the concepts than you are expecting.
No, he's just being sloppy. That can be a real pain for students trying to learn. But, be warned: A lot of people work with probability, but only a tiny fraction ever had a course in graduate probability . So, eventually have to learn to put up with, and sometimes rewrite, some of what is written that is not very precise. Here are the accepted definitions: Take a non-empty set, usually denoted by Omega, and call it t…
Who should I read for an introduction to that "big mess"?
So many of the cases I'm actually interested in require real valued (continuous) inputs and outcomes. While one can quantize these to create an approximation of something countable, it seems like that a much simpler theory would be possible if it was built from the ground up to handle these common non-discrete real-world cases, rather than trying to shoe-horn them into standard probability theory. I was hoping this might be the direction that Terry was headed, with the emphasis on probabilistic methods.
Re: Foundations of probability theory
#19Re: Foundations of probability theory
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, what's the background that lets you be so dismissive of a Fields Medal winner? At this point I see a blog post written by a well respected mathematician whom I feel comfortable trusting and it's being brushed aside by I don't know who.
Well you can just read the reviews to see that the Durrett text isn't well regarded while others like Chung's are. And the criticism about a probability space not being a sample space is correct, but I think it's clear what Tao meant there, namely that the sample space would be a part of a probability space.
The Amazon UK reviews of Chung's book lead me to A Probability Path by Sidney Resnick which appears to be aimed at non-mathematicians. I have invested (speaking as a renegade physicist lacking a systematic exploration of measure theory).