{"title":"从沃尔德到施诺尔:维耶定理之后冯-米塞斯对随机性的定义。","authors":"Francesca Zaffora Blando","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The first formal definition of randomness, seen as a property of sequences of events or experimental outcomes, dates back to Richard von Mises’ work in the foundations of probability and statistics. The randomness notion introduced by von Mises is nowadays widely regarded as being too weak. This is, to a large extent, due to the work of Jean Ville, which is often described as having dealt the death blow to von Mises’ approach, and which was integral to the development of algorithmic randomness—the now-standard theory of randomness for elements of a probability space. The main goal of this article is to trace the history and provide an in-depth appraisal of two lesser-known, yet historically and methodologically notable proposals for how to modify von Mises’ definition so as to avoid Ville’s objection. The first proposal is due to Abraham Wald, while the second one is due to Claus-Peter Schnorr. We show that, once made precise in a natural way using computability theory, Wald’s proposal constitutes a much more radical departure from von Mises’ framework than intended. Schnorr’s proposal, on the other hand, does provide a partial vindication of von Mises’ approach: it demonstrates that it is possible to obtain a satisfactory randomness notion—indeed, a canonical algorithmic randomness notion—by characterizing randomness in terms of the invariance of limiting relative frequencies. More generally, we argue that Schnorr’s proposal, together with a number of little-known related results, reveals that there is more continuity than typically acknowledged between von Mises’ approach and algorithmic randomness. Even though von Mises’ exclusive focus on limiting relative frequencies did not survive the passage to the theory of algorithmic randomness, another crucial aspect of his conception of randomness did endure; namely, the idea that randomness amounts to a certain type of stability or invariance under an appropriate class of transformations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"106 ","pages":"Pages 196-207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001018/pdfft?md5=146784a0fc74ca72fd7220715cd3f664&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124001018-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Wald to Schnorr: von Mises’ definition of randomness in the aftermath of Ville’s Theorem\",\"authors\":\"Francesca Zaffora Blando\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.06.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The first formal definition of randomness, seen as a property of sequences of events or experimental outcomes, dates back to Richard von Mises’ work in the foundations of probability and statistics. The randomness notion introduced by von Mises is nowadays widely regarded as being too weak. This is, to a large extent, due to the work of Jean Ville, which is often described as having dealt the death blow to von Mises’ approach, and which was integral to the development of algorithmic randomness—the now-standard theory of randomness for elements of a probability space. The main goal of this article is to trace the history and provide an in-depth appraisal of two lesser-known, yet historically and methodologically notable proposals for how to modify von Mises’ definition so as to avoid Ville’s objection. The first proposal is due to Abraham Wald, while the second one is due to Claus-Peter Schnorr. We show that, once made precise in a natural way using computability theory, Wald’s proposal constitutes a much more radical departure from von Mises’ framework than intended. Schnorr’s proposal, on the other hand, does provide a partial vindication of von Mises’ approach: it demonstrates that it is possible to obtain a satisfactory randomness notion—indeed, a canonical algorithmic randomness notion—by characterizing randomness in terms of the invariance of limiting relative frequencies. More generally, we argue that Schnorr’s proposal, together with a number of little-known related results, reveals that there is more continuity than typically acknowledged between von Mises’ approach and algorithmic randomness. Even though von Mises’ exclusive focus on limiting relative frequencies did not survive the passage to the theory of algorithmic randomness, another crucial aspect of his conception of randomness did endure; namely, the idea that randomness amounts to a certain type of stability or invariance under an appropriate class of transformations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"106 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 196-207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001018/pdfft?md5=146784a0fc74ca72fd7220715cd3f664&pid=1-s2.0-S0039368124001018-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001018\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368124001018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
随机性被视为事件序列或实验结果的一种属性,其第一个正式定义可追溯到理查德-冯-米塞斯(Richard von Mises)在概率论和统计学基础方面的工作。如今,人们普遍认为冯-米塞斯提出的随机性概念过于薄弱。这在很大程度上要归功于让-维勒的工作,他的工作常常被描述为给了冯-米塞斯的方法致命一击,而且对算法随机性--现在是概率空间元素随机性的标准理论--的发展起到了不可或缺的作用。本文的主要目的是追溯冯-米塞斯定义的历史,并深入评价两个鲜为人知、但在历史和方法论上引人注目的建议,即如何修改冯-米塞斯的定义以避免维勒的反对意见。第一个建议出自亚伯拉罕-瓦尔德(Abraham Wald)之手,第二个建议出自克劳斯-彼得-施诺尔(Claus-Peter Schnorr)之手。我们的研究表明,一旦利用可计算性理论以自然的方式使其精确化,瓦尔德的建议就会构成对冯-米塞斯框架比预期更彻底的背离。另一方面,施诺尔的建议确实为冯-米塞斯的方法提供了部分平反:它证明了通过用极限相对频率的不变性来描述随机性,是有可能获得一个令人满意的随机性概念--事实上,一个典型的算法随机性概念。更广泛地说,我们认为施诺尔的提议以及一些鲜为人知的相关结果,揭示了在冯-米塞斯的方法与算法随机性之间存在着比通常所承认的更多的连续性。尽管冯-米塞斯对限制性相对频率的专注并没有在算法随机性理论中得到延续,但他的随机性概念的另一个关键方面却得到了延续,即随机性等同于某类适当变换下的稳定性或不变性。
From Wald to Schnorr: von Mises’ definition of randomness in the aftermath of Ville’s Theorem
The first formal definition of randomness, seen as a property of sequences of events or experimental outcomes, dates back to Richard von Mises’ work in the foundations of probability and statistics. The randomness notion introduced by von Mises is nowadays widely regarded as being too weak. This is, to a large extent, due to the work of Jean Ville, which is often described as having dealt the death blow to von Mises’ approach, and which was integral to the development of algorithmic randomness—the now-standard theory of randomness for elements of a probability space. The main goal of this article is to trace the history and provide an in-depth appraisal of two lesser-known, yet historically and methodologically notable proposals for how to modify von Mises’ definition so as to avoid Ville’s objection. The first proposal is due to Abraham Wald, while the second one is due to Claus-Peter Schnorr. We show that, once made precise in a natural way using computability theory, Wald’s proposal constitutes a much more radical departure from von Mises’ framework than intended. Schnorr’s proposal, on the other hand, does provide a partial vindication of von Mises’ approach: it demonstrates that it is possible to obtain a satisfactory randomness notion—indeed, a canonical algorithmic randomness notion—by characterizing randomness in terms of the invariance of limiting relative frequencies. More generally, we argue that Schnorr’s proposal, together with a number of little-known related results, reveals that there is more continuity than typically acknowledged between von Mises’ approach and algorithmic randomness. Even though von Mises’ exclusive focus on limiting relative frequencies did not survive the passage to the theory of algorithmic randomness, another crucial aspect of his conception of randomness did endure; namely, the idea that randomness amounts to a certain type of stability or invariance under an appropriate class of transformations.
期刊介绍:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.