What are the foundations of probability?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am reading a book on NLP which gives an introduction on Probability Theory. Here it talks about $sigma$-field. It says,
"The foundations of probability theory depend on the set of events $mathscr{F}$ forming a $sigma$-field".
I understood the definition of $sigma$-field.
My questions are:
- What are the foundations of probability theory?
- How are these foundations dependent upon a $sigma$-field?
probability-theory statistics measure-theory
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am reading a book on NLP which gives an introduction on Probability Theory. Here it talks about $sigma$-field. It says,
"The foundations of probability theory depend on the set of events $mathscr{F}$ forming a $sigma$-field".
I understood the definition of $sigma$-field.
My questions are:
- What are the foundations of probability theory?
- How are these foundations dependent upon a $sigma$-field?
probability-theory statistics measure-theory
1
Have you picked up a textbook on probability theory? This may be a good start.
– Clement C.
2 hours ago
I am reading "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Christopher D. Manning
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
But this is not a textbook on probability theory. This is a book on Natural Language Processing which includes some preliminaries of probability theory -- this is not the same thing. If you want to understand the foundations of probability, consult a textbook on that, not on something that merely uses probabilities.
– Clement C.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am reading a book on NLP which gives an introduction on Probability Theory. Here it talks about $sigma$-field. It says,
"The foundations of probability theory depend on the set of events $mathscr{F}$ forming a $sigma$-field".
I understood the definition of $sigma$-field.
My questions are:
- What are the foundations of probability theory?
- How are these foundations dependent upon a $sigma$-field?
probability-theory statistics measure-theory
I am reading a book on NLP which gives an introduction on Probability Theory. Here it talks about $sigma$-field. It says,
"The foundations of probability theory depend on the set of events $mathscr{F}$ forming a $sigma$-field".
I understood the definition of $sigma$-field.
My questions are:
- What are the foundations of probability theory?
- How are these foundations dependent upon a $sigma$-field?
probability-theory statistics measure-theory
probability-theory statistics measure-theory
edited 1 hour ago
user587192
1,453112
1,453112
asked 2 hours ago
eddard.stark
1073
1073
1
Have you picked up a textbook on probability theory? This may be a good start.
– Clement C.
2 hours ago
I am reading "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Christopher D. Manning
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
But this is not a textbook on probability theory. This is a book on Natural Language Processing which includes some preliminaries of probability theory -- this is not the same thing. If you want to understand the foundations of probability, consult a textbook on that, not on something that merely uses probabilities.
– Clement C.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Have you picked up a textbook on probability theory? This may be a good start.
– Clement C.
2 hours ago
I am reading "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Christopher D. Manning
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
But this is not a textbook on probability theory. This is a book on Natural Language Processing which includes some preliminaries of probability theory -- this is not the same thing. If you want to understand the foundations of probability, consult a textbook on that, not on something that merely uses probabilities.
– Clement C.
1 hour ago
1
1
Have you picked up a textbook on probability theory? This may be a good start.
– Clement C.
2 hours ago
Have you picked up a textbook on probability theory? This may be a good start.
– Clement C.
2 hours ago
I am reading "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Christopher D. Manning
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
I am reading "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Christopher D. Manning
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
But this is not a textbook on probability theory. This is a book on Natural Language Processing which includes some preliminaries of probability theory -- this is not the same thing. If you want to understand the foundations of probability, consult a textbook on that, not on something that merely uses probabilities.
– Clement C.
1 hour ago
But this is not a textbook on probability theory. This is a book on Natural Language Processing which includes some preliminaries of probability theory -- this is not the same thing. If you want to understand the foundations of probability, consult a textbook on that, not on something that merely uses probabilities.
– Clement C.
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I will try an answer less poetic than @Matthias - I hope not too technical.
Probability when there are only finitely many outcomes is a matter of counting. There are $36$ possible results from a roll of two dice and $6$ of them sum to $7$ so the probability of a sum of $7$ is $6/36$. You've measured the size of the set of outcomes that you are interested in.
It's harder to make rigorous sense of things when the set of possible results is infinite. What does it mean to choose two numbers at random in the interval $[1,6]$ and ask for their sum? Any particular pair, like $(1.3, pi)$, will have probability $0$.
You deal with this problem by replacing counting with integration. Unfortunately, the integration you learn in first year calculus ("Riemann integration") isn't powerful enough to derive all you need about probability. (It is enough to determine the probability that your two rolls total exactly $7$ is $0$, and to find the probability that it's at least $7$.)
For the definitions and theorems of rigorous probability theory (those are the "foundations" you ask about) you need "Lebesgue integration". That requires first carefully specifying the sets that you are going to ask for the probabilities of - and not every set is allowed, for technical reasons without which you can't make the mathematics work the way you want. It turns out that the set of sets whose probability you are going to ask about carries the name "$sigma$-field" or "sigma algebra". (It's not a field in the arithmetic sense.)
The essential point is that it's closed under countable set operations. That's what the "$sigma$" says. Your text may not provide a formal definition - you may not need it for NLP applications.
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
At the beginning, there was the sample space $Omega$, the set of all outcomes of a random experiment. And the Lord said, "Let there be events!", and Lo! certain subsets of the sample space became events, subject to their countable union and their complement being another event. And the Lord said, "Let us measure how often we can observe these events if we repeat the experiment many times!", and thus was born the probability measure: a number between 0 and 1 assigned to every event, subject to the same axioms as any other measure (such as length, cardinality, etc.). And on the third day, the Lord said, "Let us do math with the outcomes of random experiments!", and thus he created the random variable, which is a measurement made on the outcome of a random experiment, such that the pre-image of a Borel-set in the real numbers is an event...
New contributor
1
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
3
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
2
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
1
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3042059%2fwhat-are-the-foundations-of-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I will try an answer less poetic than @Matthias - I hope not too technical.
Probability when there are only finitely many outcomes is a matter of counting. There are $36$ possible results from a roll of two dice and $6$ of them sum to $7$ so the probability of a sum of $7$ is $6/36$. You've measured the size of the set of outcomes that you are interested in.
It's harder to make rigorous sense of things when the set of possible results is infinite. What does it mean to choose two numbers at random in the interval $[1,6]$ and ask for their sum? Any particular pair, like $(1.3, pi)$, will have probability $0$.
You deal with this problem by replacing counting with integration. Unfortunately, the integration you learn in first year calculus ("Riemann integration") isn't powerful enough to derive all you need about probability. (It is enough to determine the probability that your two rolls total exactly $7$ is $0$, and to find the probability that it's at least $7$.)
For the definitions and theorems of rigorous probability theory (those are the "foundations" you ask about) you need "Lebesgue integration". That requires first carefully specifying the sets that you are going to ask for the probabilities of - and not every set is allowed, for technical reasons without which you can't make the mathematics work the way you want. It turns out that the set of sets whose probability you are going to ask about carries the name "$sigma$-field" or "sigma algebra". (It's not a field in the arithmetic sense.)
The essential point is that it's closed under countable set operations. That's what the "$sigma$" says. Your text may not provide a formal definition - you may not need it for NLP applications.
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I will try an answer less poetic than @Matthias - I hope not too technical.
Probability when there are only finitely many outcomes is a matter of counting. There are $36$ possible results from a roll of two dice and $6$ of them sum to $7$ so the probability of a sum of $7$ is $6/36$. You've measured the size of the set of outcomes that you are interested in.
It's harder to make rigorous sense of things when the set of possible results is infinite. What does it mean to choose two numbers at random in the interval $[1,6]$ and ask for their sum? Any particular pair, like $(1.3, pi)$, will have probability $0$.
You deal with this problem by replacing counting with integration. Unfortunately, the integration you learn in first year calculus ("Riemann integration") isn't powerful enough to derive all you need about probability. (It is enough to determine the probability that your two rolls total exactly $7$ is $0$, and to find the probability that it's at least $7$.)
For the definitions and theorems of rigorous probability theory (those are the "foundations" you ask about) you need "Lebesgue integration". That requires first carefully specifying the sets that you are going to ask for the probabilities of - and not every set is allowed, for technical reasons without which you can't make the mathematics work the way you want. It turns out that the set of sets whose probability you are going to ask about carries the name "$sigma$-field" or "sigma algebra". (It's not a field in the arithmetic sense.)
The essential point is that it's closed under countable set operations. That's what the "$sigma$" says. Your text may not provide a formal definition - you may not need it for NLP applications.
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
I will try an answer less poetic than @Matthias - I hope not too technical.
Probability when there are only finitely many outcomes is a matter of counting. There are $36$ possible results from a roll of two dice and $6$ of them sum to $7$ so the probability of a sum of $7$ is $6/36$. You've measured the size of the set of outcomes that you are interested in.
It's harder to make rigorous sense of things when the set of possible results is infinite. What does it mean to choose two numbers at random in the interval $[1,6]$ and ask for their sum? Any particular pair, like $(1.3, pi)$, will have probability $0$.
You deal with this problem by replacing counting with integration. Unfortunately, the integration you learn in first year calculus ("Riemann integration") isn't powerful enough to derive all you need about probability. (It is enough to determine the probability that your two rolls total exactly $7$ is $0$, and to find the probability that it's at least $7$.)
For the definitions and theorems of rigorous probability theory (those are the "foundations" you ask about) you need "Lebesgue integration". That requires first carefully specifying the sets that you are going to ask for the probabilities of - and not every set is allowed, for technical reasons without which you can't make the mathematics work the way you want. It turns out that the set of sets whose probability you are going to ask about carries the name "$sigma$-field" or "sigma algebra". (It's not a field in the arithmetic sense.)
The essential point is that it's closed under countable set operations. That's what the "$sigma$" says. Your text may not provide a formal definition - you may not need it for NLP applications.
I will try an answer less poetic than @Matthias - I hope not too technical.
Probability when there are only finitely many outcomes is a matter of counting. There are $36$ possible results from a roll of two dice and $6$ of them sum to $7$ so the probability of a sum of $7$ is $6/36$. You've measured the size of the set of outcomes that you are interested in.
It's harder to make rigorous sense of things when the set of possible results is infinite. What does it mean to choose two numbers at random in the interval $[1,6]$ and ask for their sum? Any particular pair, like $(1.3, pi)$, will have probability $0$.
You deal with this problem by replacing counting with integration. Unfortunately, the integration you learn in first year calculus ("Riemann integration") isn't powerful enough to derive all you need about probability. (It is enough to determine the probability that your two rolls total exactly $7$ is $0$, and to find the probability that it's at least $7$.)
For the definitions and theorems of rigorous probability theory (those are the "foundations" you ask about) you need "Lebesgue integration". That requires first carefully specifying the sets that you are going to ask for the probabilities of - and not every set is allowed, for technical reasons without which you can't make the mathematics work the way you want. It turns out that the set of sets whose probability you are going to ask about carries the name "$sigma$-field" or "sigma algebra". (It's not a field in the arithmetic sense.)
The essential point is that it's closed under countable set operations. That's what the "$sigma$" says. Your text may not provide a formal definition - you may not need it for NLP applications.
edited 23 mins ago
answered 51 mins ago
Ethan Bolker
40.6k545107
40.6k545107
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
add a comment |
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
I am reading it a couple of times. I think it is going to take me some time to understand all of it. Thanks for the answer anyways.
– eddard.stark
8 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
At the beginning, there was the sample space $Omega$, the set of all outcomes of a random experiment. And the Lord said, "Let there be events!", and Lo! certain subsets of the sample space became events, subject to their countable union and their complement being another event. And the Lord said, "Let us measure how often we can observe these events if we repeat the experiment many times!", and thus was born the probability measure: a number between 0 and 1 assigned to every event, subject to the same axioms as any other measure (such as length, cardinality, etc.). And on the third day, the Lord said, "Let us do math with the outcomes of random experiments!", and thus he created the random variable, which is a measurement made on the outcome of a random experiment, such that the pre-image of a Borel-set in the real numbers is an event...
New contributor
1
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
3
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
2
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
1
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
At the beginning, there was the sample space $Omega$, the set of all outcomes of a random experiment. And the Lord said, "Let there be events!", and Lo! certain subsets of the sample space became events, subject to their countable union and their complement being another event. And the Lord said, "Let us measure how often we can observe these events if we repeat the experiment many times!", and thus was born the probability measure: a number between 0 and 1 assigned to every event, subject to the same axioms as any other measure (such as length, cardinality, etc.). And on the third day, the Lord said, "Let us do math with the outcomes of random experiments!", and thus he created the random variable, which is a measurement made on the outcome of a random experiment, such that the pre-image of a Borel-set in the real numbers is an event...
New contributor
1
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
3
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
2
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
1
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
At the beginning, there was the sample space $Omega$, the set of all outcomes of a random experiment. And the Lord said, "Let there be events!", and Lo! certain subsets of the sample space became events, subject to their countable union and their complement being another event. And the Lord said, "Let us measure how often we can observe these events if we repeat the experiment many times!", and thus was born the probability measure: a number between 0 and 1 assigned to every event, subject to the same axioms as any other measure (such as length, cardinality, etc.). And on the third day, the Lord said, "Let us do math with the outcomes of random experiments!", and thus he created the random variable, which is a measurement made on the outcome of a random experiment, such that the pre-image of a Borel-set in the real numbers is an event...
New contributor
At the beginning, there was the sample space $Omega$, the set of all outcomes of a random experiment. And the Lord said, "Let there be events!", and Lo! certain subsets of the sample space became events, subject to their countable union and their complement being another event. And the Lord said, "Let us measure how often we can observe these events if we repeat the experiment many times!", and thus was born the probability measure: a number between 0 and 1 assigned to every event, subject to the same axioms as any other measure (such as length, cardinality, etc.). And on the third day, the Lord said, "Let us do math with the outcomes of random experiments!", and thus he created the random variable, which is a measurement made on the outcome of a random experiment, such that the pre-image of a Borel-set in the real numbers is an event...
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 hours ago
Matthias
2455
2455
New contributor
New contributor
1
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
3
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
2
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
1
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
3
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
2
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
1
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
1
1
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
really??? ${}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}$ Not funny.
– amWhy
2 hours ago
3
3
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
You must have a different foundation in mind than "sample space", "outcome", "event", "probability measure", and "random variable". Do educate...unless you are busy being the life of a party. :(
– Matthias
2 hours ago
2
2
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review
– Leucippus
2 hours ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
I'm neither critiquing nor requesting clarification. I give an informal explanation of the first five topics I introduce in my probability course, instead of using language that OP could find in any textbook - intuition before precision.
– Matthias
1 hour ago
1
1
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
Thanks for the answer
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3042059%2fwhat-are-the-foundations-of-probability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Have you picked up a textbook on probability theory? This may be a good start.
– Clement C.
2 hours ago
I am reading "Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing" by Christopher D. Manning
– eddard.stark
1 hour ago
But this is not a textbook on probability theory. This is a book on Natural Language Processing which includes some preliminaries of probability theory -- this is not the same thing. If you want to understand the foundations of probability, consult a textbook on that, not on something that merely uses probabilities.
– Clement C.
1 hour ago