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?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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















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?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 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













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?










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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














  • 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










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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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


















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...






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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











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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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















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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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













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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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










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...






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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















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...






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 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













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...






share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









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...







share|cite|improve this answer








New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer






New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 2 hours ago









Matthias

2455




2455




New contributor




Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Matthias is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 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




    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


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei