Customer Reviews (3)

Not a bad read, but marketed somewhat unfairly
I realize that this is a classic text and a 3-star rating isnot really appropriate, but I think there's some things someone should know before buying this book that arn't spelled out. First of all, despite its fancy cover, this book is older than Ozzy. In fact, the first edition was put out in 1929 (to be fair, this is mentioned on the cover.) A lot has happened since then, but what really bothers me is how the back cover markets this book as a definitive exposition on probability. In reality, Von Mises is the advocator (inventor?) of a particular concept of probability, the (extreme) "frequentist approach." In his view, *only* sequences in a long series of observations can be modeled by probability. Now Im no expert, but I can tell you that this is extremety of viewpoint is not agreed on my many experts in the field today. If you're interested in the evolution of the theory of probability, then I think this is a fine read. But if you are wanting a thorough and complete introduction to concepts of probability and statistics, this may not be the best place to find it.

Rare discussion by a statistician & easy to read
I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the meaning of statistics. Statistics is based on probability theory, which in turn is dependent on a very specific definition of 'probability'. As such,statistical interpretation should always reflect this definition. This bookclarifies the meaning of probability and its impact on statisticalreasoning.

It covers the 'grey area' of statistics, too often ignored inuniversity texts.

This book is very easy to read and does not requiremuch exposure to mathematical probability/statistics. The central ideas ofthe book are applied to 'practical' applications in Physics, which makes iteven more interesting.

For the price, it is a great buy!

great frequentistic work
This outstanding presentation of the frequentist interpretation of probability should be read by all seeking an understanding of what a probability really =is=.One need not accept frequentism (and I do not) to profit greatly from this work. ... Read more