Understanding probability, is probability defined?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobby2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Probability
Click For Summary
Probability is fundamentally defined as a "measure" in mathematical terms, rather than being strictly tied to relative frequency. While many statistics textbooks describe probability through events and outcomes, they often do not provide a formal definition, leading to confusion about its foundational concepts. The axiomatic development of probability theory does not guarantee that probability reflects real-world outcomes, as it abstracts away from physical interpretations. The relationship between probability and relative frequency is established through the law of large numbers, which suggests that observed frequencies will converge to theoretical probabilities over many trials. Ultimately, the philosophical underpinnings of probability remain complex, as the intuitive understanding of likelihood does not easily translate into rigorous mathematical definitions.
  • #61
bobby2k said:
Or is it inevitable that we would use "belief" in explaining/justifying that we approximate a probability with a finite relative frequency?

If you have a mathematical theory that deals with one set of concepts ( e.g. weight, mass, position) and you try to apply it to a situation defined by a different set of concepts (e.g. price, value, utility) then you must introduce assumptions that establish some relation between the different concepts. You can introduce assumptions as formal mathematical axioms (which is necessary if you intend to prove your results) or you can introduce assumptions by your personal beliefs in an informal manner.

As far as I know, nobody has created a set of axioms for probability theory that establishes any deterministic relation between the relative frequency of an event and its probability. So if you want to establish such a relationship, you must do it using your personal beliefs - or else invent the mathematics that does the job.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
There is nothing mystical about probabilities. Given a set of data, it is obvious, and dirt simple, to ask which fraction or percentage satisfies certain conditions. Scaling those numbers to a [0,1] scale or to a [0%, 100%] scale is just computationally convenient. Also, using the past events (statistics of past experiences) to anticipate similar future events (probabilities of future outcomes) is critical to the survival of even the simplest thinking animals.
 
  • #63
Stephen Tashi said:
If you have a mathematical theory that deals with one set of concepts ( e.g. weight, mass, position) and you try to apply it to a situation defined by a different set of concepts (e.g. price, value, utility) then you must introduce assumptions that establish some relation between the different concepts. You can introduce assumptions as formal mathematical axioms (which is necessary if you intend to prove your results) or you can introduce assumptions by your personal beliefs in an informal manner.

As far as I know, nobody has created a set of axioms for probability theory that establishes any deterministic relation between the relative frequency of an event and its probability. So if you want to establish such a relationship, you must do it using your personal beliefs - or else invent the mathematics that does the job.

Thank you, I now have the understanding I wanted about this subject. Sorry for taking so much time to understand it, but thank you very much for beeing patient!
 
  • #64
"On voit, par cet Essai, que la théorie des probabilités n'est, au fond, que le bon sens réduit au calcul; elle fait apprécier avec exactitude ce que les esprits justes sentent par une sorte d'instinct, sans qu'ils puissent souvent s'en rendre compte."

"One sees, from this Essay, that the theory of probabilities is basically just common sense reduced to calculus; it makes one appreciate with exactness that which accurate minds feel with a sort of instinct, often without being able to account for it."

Pierre-Simon Laplace, from the Introduction to Théorie Analytique des Probabilités.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K