Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:52:34.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Probabilities over rich languages, testing and randomness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Haim Gaifman
Affiliation:
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Marc Snir
Affiliation:
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

Extract

The basic concept underlying probability theory and statistics is a function assigning numerical values (probabilities) to events. An “event” in this context is any conceivable state of affairs including the so-called “empty event”—an a priori impossible state. Informally, events are described in everyday language (e.g. “by playing this strategy I shall win $1000 before going broke”). But in the current mathematical framework (first proposed by Kolmogoroff [Ko 1]) they are identified with subsets of some all-inclusive set Q. The family of all events constitutes a field, or σ-field, and the logical connectives ‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘not’ are translated into the set-theoretical operations of intersection, union and complementation. The points of Q can be regarded as possible worlds and an event as the set of all worlds in which it takes place. The concept of a field of sets is wide enough to accommodate all cases and to allow for a general abstract foundation of the theory. On the other hand it does not reflect distinctions that arise out of the linguistic structure which goes into the description of our events. Since events are always described in some language they can be indentified with the sentences that describe them and the probability function can be regarded as an assignment of values to sentences. The extensive accumulated knowledge concerning formal languages makes such a project feasible. The study of probability functions defined over the sentences of a rich enough formal language yields interesting insights in more than one direction.

Our present approach is not an alternative to the accepted Kolmogoroff axiomatics. In fact, given some formal language L, we can consider a rich enough set, say Q, of models for L (called also in this work “worlds”) and we can associate with every sentence the set of all worlds in Q in which the sentence is true. Thus our probabilities can be considered also as measures over some field of sets. But the introduction of the language adds mathematical structure and makes for distinctions expressing basic intuitions that cannot be otherwise expressed. As an example we mention here the concept of a random sequence or, more generally, a random world, or a world which is typical to a certain probability distribution.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[Br]Breiman, Leo, Probability, Addison-Wessly, London, 1968.Google Scholar
[Ca 1]Carnap, Rudolf, Remarks on induction and truth, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 6 (19451946), pp. 590602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ca 2]Carnap, Rudolf, The logical foundations of probability, Chicago University Press, Chicago, Ill., 1951.Google Scholar
[Ch]Chaitin, G.J., Algorithmic information theory, IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 21 (1977), pp. 350359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Chr]Christensen, J.P.R., Topology and Borel structure, North-Holland Mathematical Studies, no. 10, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
[Fe]Fenstad, J.E., Representations of probabilities defined on first order language, Sets, models and recursion theory (Crossley, , editor), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 156172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ga 1]Gaifman, Haim, Probability models and the completeness theorem, International Congress of Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 1960, Abstracts of Contributed Papers, pp. 7778, mimeographed.Google Scholar
[Ga 2]Gaifman, Haim, Concerning measures in first order calculii, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 2, no. 1 (1964), pp. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ga 3]Gaifman, Haim, Subjective probability, natural predicates and Hempel's ravens, Erkenntnis, vol. 14 (1979), pp. 105147.Google Scholar
[H-H]Hàjek, Peter and Havrànek, Tomáš, Mechanizing hypothesis formation, mathematical foundations for a general theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ho]Janina, Hosiasson, On confirmation, this Journal, vol. 5 (1940), pp. 133148.Google Scholar
[Ko 1]Kolmogoroff, A.N., Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, no. 2, Berlin, 1933.Google Scholar
[Ko 2]Kolmogoroff, A.N., Three approaches to the definitions of the concept “amount of information”, Problemy Peredači Informacii, vol. 1 (1965) (Russian); English translation in Selected Translations in Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 7 (1968), American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., pp. 293–302.Google Scholar
[Koo]Koopman, B.O., The axioms and algebra of intuitive probability, Annals of Mathematics (2), vol. 41 (1940), pp. 269292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Lo]Łos, Jerzy, Remarks on foundations of probability, Proceedings of the 1962 International Congress of Mathematics, Stockholm, 1963.Google Scholar
[ML]Martin-Löf, Per, The definition of random sequences, Information and Control, vol. 9 (1966), pp. 602619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Pu]Putnam, Hilary, Degree of confirmation and inductive logic, The philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (Schilp, , editor), Library of Living Philosophers, Open Court, 1963, pp. 761784.Google Scholar
[Ra]Ramsey, F.D., Truth and probability (1926) and Further considerations (1928), The foundations of mathematics and other essays, Harcourt-Brace, 1931.Google Scholar
[Sa]Savage, Leonard, The foundations of statistics, Dover, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
[Sc]Schnorr, Claus P, Zufälligkeit und Wahrscheinlichkeit, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 218, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1971.Google Scholar
[S-K]Scott, Dana and Krauss, Peter, Assigning probabilities to logical formulas, Aspects of inductive logic (Hintikka, and Suppes, , editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 219264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar