FOM: Question on Text

[Vladik Kreinovich]

He is of definitely of interest even after 1933 Kolmogorov book:

The Kolmogorov-Martin-Lof 1970s notion of a random sequence, although 
originally formulated differently (as a sequence that passes all computable 
randomeness tests) can be viewed as a version of von Mises's definition 
(speicially, as a seuqnece for which the frequencies are in accordance with the 
probabilities both for the original sequence and for the results of applying 
computable measure-presevring automorphisms to it). 

See, e.g., Li and Vitanyi's book on Kolmogorov complexity for technical 
details. 

Vladik

> From: Steve Stevenson <steve at cs.clemson.edu>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:35:16 -0400 (EDT)
> To: fom at math.psu.edu
> Subject: FOM: Question on Text
> 
> 
> Morning.
> 
> Despite what's going on in the US at this instant, I have a question
> about the standing of this text:
> 
> @Book{mises81:_probab_statis_truth,
>   author =	 {Richard {von Mises}},
>   title = 	 {Probability, Statistics, and Truth},
>   publisher = 	 {Dover Publications},
>   year = 	 1981,
>   note =	 {Original: copyright 1957 by George Allen \& Unwin
>                   Ltd. ISBN 0-486-24214-5. QA273/V613 1981}
> }
> 
> Von Mises was surely important up until Kolmogorov's work, or so says
> the St. Andrews' bibliography on him. Local philosophers say he is not
> particularly important to the philosophy of science.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> steve