Understanding some more set theory for statistics

universalis
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hope this is the right forum for my question.

I'm into statistics and quite often see assumptions involving set theory. I know some set theory but am having trouble understanding it for any application. I would like to narrow this gap, maybe because this type of mathematics seems most interesting to me or Maybe because it seems so hard? Anyway, my problem when studying some books is that I'm having a hard time imagining any set theory than the most basic. For example, I've looked at descrptive set theory, it seemed hard though. Therefore I would like to ask you about any book you could recommend.

My question is a bit fuzzy but I hope you know what I mean. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To get good advice, I think you must indicate the level of set theory you want to study.

Elementary probability theory uses concepts such as intersection, complement, union, De Morgan's laws.

It uses permutations and combinations of sets of things - Is that part of the set theory you want to study?

Advanced probability uses limits of sequences of sets, sigma algebras of sets.

It may use topological properties of sets such as "everywhere dense", "connected".

It may use properties of set cardinality such as "countably infinite".
 
Yes, sigma algebras, filtrations, probability spaces, etc. are some of the things I would like to read more about. For example, what is meant by a Polish space being used as a state space.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Back
Top