出版社: Cambridge University Press
副标题: The Logic of Science
出版年: 200369
页数: 753
定价: USD 110.00
装帧: Hardcover
ISBN: 9780521592710
内容简介 · · · · · ·
The standard rules of probability can be interpreted as uniquely valid principles in logic. In this book, E. T. Jaynes dispels the imaginary distinction between 'probability theory' and 'statistical inference', leaving a logical unity and simplicity, which provides greater technical power and flexibility in applications. This book goes beyond the conventional mathematics of pro...
The standard rules of probability can be interpreted as uniquely valid principles in logic. In this book, E. T. Jaynes dispels the imaginary distinction between 'probability theory' and 'statistical inference', leaving a logical unity and simplicity, which provides greater technical power and flexibility in applications. This book goes beyond the conventional mathematics of probability theory, viewing the subject in a wider context. New results are discussed, along with applications of probability theory to a wide variety of problems in physics, mathematics, economics, chemistry and biology. It contains many exercises and problems, and is suitable for use as a textbook on graduate level courses involving data analysis. The material is aimed at readers who are already familiar with applied mathematics at an advanced undergraduate level or higher. The book will be of interest to scientists working in any area where inference from incomplete information is necessary.
豆瓣成员常用的标签(共87个) · · · · · ·
喜欢读"Probability Theory"的人也喜欢的电子书 · · · · · ·
喜欢读"Probability Theory"的人也喜欢 · · · · · ·
> 更多短评 8 条
Probability Theory的话题 · · · · · · ( 全部 条 )
Probability Theory的书评 · · · · · · ( 全部 1 条 )
> 更多书评1篇

find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
The fundamental, inescapable distinction between probability and frequency lies in this relativity principle: probabilities change when we change our state of knowledge; frequencies do not.20170922 09:15

find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
We have to recognize that our robot is immature; it reasons like a fouryearold child does. The remarkable thing about small children is that you can tell them the most ridiculous things and they will accept it all with wide open eyes, open mouth, and it never occurs to them to question you. They will believe anything you tell them. 这段很有趣，接下来的那段也令人深思。目前我们做的许多自动对话...20170831 10:55
We have to recognize that our robot is immature; it reasons like a fouryearold child does. The remarkable thing about small children is that you can tell them the most ridiculous things and they will accept it all with wide open eyes, open mouth, and it never occurs to them to question you. They will believe anything you tell them.
这段很有趣，接下来的那段也令人深思。目前我们做的许多自动对话的bot，其实对推理这块并没有放开，我们都知道这样做会更有趣，但问题是太特么难了，不好控制。
回应 20170831 10:55 
find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
One might expect that open discussion of public issues would tend to bring about a general consensus. On the contrary, we observe repeatedly that when some controversial issue has been discussed vigorously for a few years, society becomes polarized into two opposite extreme camps; it is almost impossible to find anyone who retains a moderate view. Prob ability theory as logic shows how two per...20170804 16:59
One might expect that open discussion of public issues would tend to bring about a general consensus. On the contrary, we observe repeatedly that when some controversial issue has been discussed vigorously for a few years, society becomes polarized into two opposite extreme camps; it is almost impossible to find anyone who retains a moderate view. Prob ability theory as logic shows how two persons, given the same information, may have their opinions driven in opposite directions by it, and what must be done to avoid this.
回应 20170804 16:59 
find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
That is, if we tried to interpret the major premise as 'A is the physical cause of B', then we would hardly be able to accept that 'notB is the physical cause of notA'.20170731 10:20

The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) er have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability witch is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind. ...
20130731 19:59
The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) er have to reason on. Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude of the probability witch is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind. James Clerk Maxwell (1850)回应 20130731 19:59 
find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
That is, if we tried to interpret the major premise as 'A is the physical cause of B', then we would hardly be able to accept that 'notB is the physical cause of notA'.20170731 10:20

和大人 (La Liberté guidant le peuple)
Of course, on publishing a new theorem, the mathematician will try very hard to invent an argument which uses only the first kind; but the reasoning process which led to the theorem in the first place almost always involves one of the weaker forms (based, for example, on following up conjectures suggested by analogies). The same idea is expressed in a remark of S. Banach (quoted by S. Ulam, 1957):...20110503 21:51
Stefan Banach ([ˈstɛfan ˈbanax] ( listen); March 30, 1892 – August 31, 1945) was a Polish mathematician who worked in interwar Poland and in Soviet Ukraine. He is generally considered to have been one of the 20th century's most important and influential mathematicians.A selftaught mathematics prodigy, Banach was the founder of modern functional analysis and a founder of the Lwów School of Mathematics. Among his most prominent achievements was the 1932 book, Théorie des opérations linéaires (Theory of Linear Operations), the first monograph on the general theory of functional analysis.Notable mathematical concepts named after Banach include the Banach–Tarski paradox, the Hahn–Banach theorem, the Banach–Steinhaus theorem, the BanachMazur game, and the Banach space.Of course, on publishing a new theorem, the mathematician will try very hard to invent an argument which uses only the first kind; but the reasoning process which led to the theorem in the first place almost always involves one of the weaker forms (based, for example, on following up conjectures suggested by analogies). The same idea is expressed in a remark of S. Banach (quoted by S. Ulam, 1957): Good mathematicians see analogies between theorems; great mathematicians see analogies between analogies.
回应 20110503 21:51 
In our reasoning we depend very much on prior information to help us in evaluating the degree of plausibility in a new problem. This reasoning process goes on unconsciously, almost instantaneously, and we conceal how complicated it really is by calling it common sense.
20130731 20:27

find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
The fundamental, inescapable distinction between probability and frequency lies in this relativity principle: probabilities change when we change our state of knowledge; frequencies do not.20170922 09:15

find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
We have to recognize that our robot is immature; it reasons like a fouryearold child does. The remarkable thing about small children is that you can tell them the most ridiculous things and they will accept it all with wide open eyes, open mouth, and it never occurs to them to question you. They will believe anything you tell them. 这段很有趣，接下来的那段也令人深思。目前我们做的许多自动对话...20170831 10:55
We have to recognize that our robot is immature; it reasons like a fouryearold child does. The remarkable thing about small children is that you can tell them the most ridiculous things and they will accept it all with wide open eyes, open mouth, and it never occurs to them to question you. They will believe anything you tell them.
这段很有趣，接下来的那段也令人深思。目前我们做的许多自动对话的bot，其实对推理这块并没有放开，我们都知道这样做会更有趣，但问题是太特么难了，不好控制。
回应 20170831 10:55 
find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
One might expect that open discussion of public issues would tend to bring about a general consensus. On the contrary, we observe repeatedly that when some controversial issue has been discussed vigorously for a few years, society becomes polarized into two opposite extreme camps; it is almost impossible to find anyone who retains a moderate view. Prob ability theory as logic shows how two per...20170804 16:59
One might expect that open discussion of public issues would tend to bring about a general consensus. On the contrary, we observe repeatedly that when some controversial issue has been discussed vigorously for a few years, society becomes polarized into two opposite extreme camps; it is almost impossible to find anyone who retains a moderate view. Prob ability theory as logic shows how two persons, given the same information, may have their opinions driven in opposite directions by it, and what must be done to avoid this.
回应 20170804 16:59 
find_my_way (天亮之前，天黑以后)
That is, if we tried to interpret the major premise as 'A is the physical cause of B', then we would hardly be able to accept that 'notB is the physical cause of notA'.20170731 10:20
论坛 · · · · · ·
本书英文影印版即将由人民邮电出版社图灵公司出版。  来自刘江  4 回应  20170330 
一个介绍其思想片段的地方  来自黠之大者  3 回应  20110713 
电子版有售 · · · · · ·
在哪儿买这本书 · · · · · ·
在哪儿借这本书 · · · · · ·
这本书的其他版本 · · · · · · ( 全部2 )
 人民邮电出版社版 20094 / 140人读过
以下豆列推荐 · · · · · · ( 全部 )
 《暗时间》里提到的书目 (鸡蛋泡面)
 要读的书 (TBONTB64)
 个人觉得不错的数学教材 (rushui999)
 [个人] Readinglist Season 1011 (伞保护协会)
 统计，人工智能，机器学习 (要专注)
谁读这本书?
二手市场
订阅关于Probability Theory的评论:
feed: rss 2.0
2 有用 beren 20161011
很有G.Polya的风范，序言里提到，这是一本没有完成作者就已经去世的书，去世前作者拜托编辑帮他出版，尽管如此，这依然是我今年读到的书里分量最重也是读得最细的一本，读完仍然觉得值得一读再读。虽然总体是关于Bayesian统计的，里面可以读到的东西却很多，关于数学，量子物理都有涉及，讲得也比较本源。感觉对于频率学派的批判这本书里见到的是最多的，也是最详细最系统的，比如关于p值完全不靠谱的论述和各种悖论读起来都让人兴奋，即使忽略里面的公式，读起来也依然十分精彩！
0 有用 夢の點滴 20100820
這書太過給力..結果剛到第四章就看不進去了..(。_。)
0 有用 AetDezac 20171107
聊备一说
0 有用 Collin 20141012
You'd be surprised how motivated people are.
0 有用 流年闲草 20150215
概率论的哲学视角，深邃，富有洞见且美丽
0 有用 AetDezac 20171107
聊备一说
2 有用 beren 20161011
很有G.Polya的风范，序言里提到，这是一本没有完成作者就已经去世的书，去世前作者拜托编辑帮他出版，尽管如此，这依然是我今年读到的书里分量最重也是读得最细的一本，读完仍然觉得值得一读再读。虽然总体是关于Bayesian统计的，里面可以读到的东西却很多，关于数学，量子物理都有涉及，讲得也比较本源。感觉对于频率学派的批判这本书里见到的是最多的，也是最详细最系统的，比如关于p值完全不靠谱的论述和各种悖论读起来都让人兴奋，即使忽略里面的公式，读起来也依然十分精彩！
0 有用 流年闲草 20150215
概率论的哲学视角，深邃，富有洞见且美丽
0 有用 Collin 20141012
You'd be surprised how motivated people are.
0 有用 Tzahd 20120722
Jaynes想写得太多，又想写得太全，于是书很厚，写得略苦，读得略晦涩，但仍是一本好书，因为阅读它能感受到一个物理学家一生追求的厚重