scholarly journals Probability unfolding, 1965‒2015

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (A) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
N. H. Bingham

AbstractWe give a personal (and we hope, not too idiosyncratic) view of how our subject of probability theory has developed during the last half-century, and the author in tandem with it.

2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 257-266
Author(s):  
N. H. Bingham

Probability theory, and its dynamic aspect stochastic process theory, is both a venerable subject, in that its roots go back to the mid-seventeenth century, and a young one, in that its modern formulation happened comparatively recently - well within living memory. The year 2003 marked the seventieth anniversary of Kolmogorov's Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, usually regarded as having inaugurated modern (measure-theoretic) probability theory. It also marked the fiftieth anniversary of Doob's Stochastic Processes. The profound and continuing influence of this classic work prompts the present piece.


2005 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. H. Bingham

Probability theory, and its dynamic aspect stochastic process theory, is both a venerable subject, in that its roots go back to the mid-seventeenth century, and a young one, in that its modern formulation happened comparatively recently - well within living memory. The year 2003 marked the seventieth anniversary of Kolmogorov'sGrundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, usually regarded as having inaugurated modern (measure-theoretic) probability theory. It also marked the fiftieth anniversary of Doob'sStochastic Processes. The profound and continuing influence of this classic work prompts the present piece.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin A. Locke ◽  
Gary P. Latham

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 58-66
Author(s):  
Giuliano Pancaldi

Here I survey a sample of the essays and reviews on the sciences of the long eighteenth century published in this journal since it was founded in 1969. The connecting thread is some historiographic reflections on the role that disciplines—in both the sciences we study and the fields we practice—have played in the development of the history of science over the past half century. I argue that, as far as disciplines are concerned, we now find ourselves a bit closer to a situation described in our studies of the long eighteenth century than we were fifty years ago. This should both favor our understanding of that period and, hopefully, make the historical studies that explore it more relevant to present-day developments and science policy. This essay is part of a special issue entitled “Looking Backward, Looking Forward: HSNS at 50,” edited by Erika Lorraine Milam.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document