An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Volume 1¶
Feller, W. (1968). An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Volume 1. Wiley.
Cited by¶
20 citations across 20 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Birthday Problem
- The birthday problem names a structural fact about finite namespaces under random filling: when N items are drawn uniformly at random (with replacement) from a set of K equally likely outcomes, the probability that some two of them coincide reaches one-half not at N ≈ K/2 — the answer naive intuition supplies — but at N of order √K (precisely, N ≈ √(2K ln 2)).
This sourceStandard derivation of the birthday problem: the probability that some pair among N uniform draws from K outcomes coincides reaches one-half at N of order √K (the 23-person / 365-day case), driven by the quadratic N(N−1)/2 pair count rather than the linear element count.
- The birthday problem names a structural fact about finite namespaces under random filling: when N items are drawn uniformly at random (with replacement) from a set of K equally likely outcomes, the probability that some two of them coincide reaches one-half not at N ≈ K/2 — the answer naive intuition supplies — but at N of order √K (precisely, N ≈ √(2K ln 2)).
- Central Limit Theorem
- Convolution
- The slide-flip-weight-sum operation computes \(p_S(s) = \sum_k p_X(k)\, p_Y(s-k)\) — for each total \(s\), slide \(p_Y\) across \(p_X\) and sum the products — which is exactly the discrete convolution \((p_X * p_Y)(s)\), yielding the familiar triangular distribution peaking at $7$.
This sourceDiscrete convolution of probability mass functions, including the triangular distribution of the sum of two fair dice.
- The slide-flip-weight-sum operation computes \(p_S(s) = \sum_k p_X(k)\, p_Y(s-k)\) — for each total \(s\), slide \(p_Y\) across \(p_X\) and sum the products — which is exactly the discrete convolution \((p_X * p_Y)(s)\), yielding the familiar triangular distribution peaking at $7$.
- Disjointness
- Contrast a near-miss that shows the identity-relativity and the danger of assuming separateness from mere difference: let \(C\) = {hearts} and \(D\) = {face cards}. \(C\) and \(D\) are clearly different collections, but they are not disjoint — the J, Q, K of hearts belong to both — so \(P(C \cup D) = P(C) + P(D) - P(C \cap D)\) requires subtracting the three shared cards, and naively adding would over-count.
This sourceStandard reference deriving additivity over disjoint events and the inclusion–exclusion correction P(A ∪ B) = P(A) + P(B) − P(A ∩ B) required when collections merely differ but in fact overlap. ISBN 9780471257080.
- Contrast a near-miss that shows the identity-relativity and the danger of assuming separateness from mere difference: let \(C\) = {hearts} and \(D\) = {face cards}. \(C\) and \(D\) are clearly different collections, but they are not disjoint — the J, Q, K of hearts belong to both — so \(P(C \cup D) = P(C) + P(D) - P(C \cap D)\) requires subtracting the three shared cards, and naively adding would over-count.
- Law of Large Numbers
- Where the defining integral diverges there is no limit object, and the averages are not approaching something slowly; they are approaching nothing. A dependence budget. Independence is the cheapest way to buy convergence, but the real requirement is that no fixed set of common factors move an unbounded number of terms together. A declared mode of convergence. In probability, almost surely, or in mean square; the choice decides whether the guarantee attaches to a sample size or to a trajectory. Asymptotic form with no built-in rate. The statement quantifies over n → ∞, so every error bar and sample-size calculation comes from a second assumption layered on top. No term-level constraint. Nothing is imposed on any observation, any run of observations, or their order of arrival; deviations already accumulated are never reversed, only divided by a growing number.
This sourceShows that the law constrains no individual trial and compensates no past deviation, that the absolute deviation of the count from expectation grows on the order of the square root of the trial count, and that the variance of the mean is the variance over n.
- Where the defining integral diverges there is no limit object, and the averages are not approaching something slowly; they are approaching nothing. A dependence budget. Independence is the cheapest way to buy convergence, but the real requirement is that no fixed set of common factors move an unbounded number of terms together. A declared mode of convergence. In probability, almost surely, or in mean square; the choice decides whether the guarantee attaches to a sample size or to a trajectory. Asymptotic form with no built-in rate. The statement quantifies over n → ∞, so every error bar and sample-size calculation comes from a second assumption layered on top. No term-level constraint. Nothing is imposed on any observation, any run of observations, or their order of arrival; deviations already accumulated are never reversed, only divided by a growing number.
- Partition
- Let the carrier set be the sample space \(\Omega\), and let events \(B_1, \dots, B_n\) form a Partition: the disjointness invariant says no two \(B_i\) can both occur (\(B_i \cap B_j = \emptyset\)), and the exhaustiveness invariant says some \(B_i\) must occur (\(\bigcup B_i = \Omega\)).
This sourceStandard reference for the law of total probability, where a partition of the sample space into mutually exclusive, exhaustive events licenses the additive decomposition.
- Let the carrier set be the sample space \(\Omega\), and let events \(B_1, \dots, B_n\) form a Partition: the disjointness invariant says no two \(B_i\) can both occur (\(B_i \cap B_j = \emptyset\)), and the exhaustiveness invariant says some \(B_i\) must occur (\(\bigcup B_i = \Omega\)).
- Probability
- Now consider event "sum is 8": the five pairs
(2,6), (3,5), (4,4), (5,3), (6,2), probability5/36 ≈ 0.139.P(sum = 8 | first = 4) = 1/6 ≈ 0.167(the pair(4, 4)), which differs from the marginal — these two events are dependent, and knowing the first die shifts the conditional probability, the canonical dice-space worked example Feller (1968) develops in detail in the foundational discrete-probability chapters.This sourceCanonical textbook of discrete probability; develops the dice-space, urn-model, and combinatorial worked examples that exhibit all six structural components (sample space, event structure, measure, conditioning, dependence, interpretation) of a probabilistic claim.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The publisher abstract confirms Feller's book covers sample spaces and combinatorial analysis, but it never states the dice-space conditional example, so the specific attribution is unverified.
“Beginning with the background and very nature of probability theory, the book then proceeds through sample spaces, combinatorial analysis, fluctuations in coin tossing and random walks, the combination of events, types of distributions, Markov chains, stochastic processes, and more.”
- Now consider event "sum is 8": the five pairs
- Random Walk
- The single most consequential fact the prime names is the scaling law of dispersion: because the increments are independent, their variances add while their means partly cancel, so the typical distance from the origin after \(n\) steps grows like \(\sqrt{n}\), not like \(n\).
This sourceStandard reference for the simple random walk: additive variances giving √n dispersion, the running-sum construction, and exact first-passage and recurrence results.
- The single most consequential fact the prime names is the scaling law of dispersion: because the increments are independent, their variances add while their means partly cancel, so the typical distance from the origin after \(n\) steps grows like \(\sqrt{n}\), not like \(n\).
- Risk Pooling
- Perfectly correlated risks cannot pool; they merely accumulate.
This sourceCanonical textbook of discrete probability; develops the dice-space, urn-model, and combinatorial worked examples that exhibit all six structural components (sample space, event structure, measure, conditioning, dependence, interpretation) of a probabilistic claim.
- Perfectly correlated risks cannot pool; they merely accumulate.
- Statistical Independence
- Not zero Correlation. Correlation captures only linear co-movement; a deterministic nonlinear relation (\(Y = X^2\)) can have exactly zero correlation while violating independence grossly.
This sourceStandard reference for independence, the factorization of joint distributions, and worked examples (dice, the distinction from uncorrelatedness).
- Not zero Correlation. Correlation captures only linear co-movement; a deterministic nonlinear relation (\(Y = X^2\)) can have exactly zero correlation while violating independence grossly.
Domain-specific¶
Mechanisms¶
- Activation Collision Test
- Collisions concentrate in the rare tail, and a test driven by common traffic will pass while the dangerous pair sits untested — the probability that some pair collides rises far faster than intuition suggests as the case set grows.
This sourceFormalizes the birthday problem, in which the probability of at least one matching pair rises rapidly with the number of sampled cases.
- Collisions concentrate in the rare tail, and a test driven by common traffic will pass while the dangerous pair sits untested — the probability that some pair collides rises far faster than intuition suggests as the case set grows.
- Actuarial Pool-Size Model
- Its central failure mode is that the `1/√N` benefit only materializes when exposures are genuinely independent — the law of large numbers is doing all the work, and it delivers nothing against a shock that hits many members at once.
This sourceEstablishes the law-of-large-numbers reduction in aggregate fluctuation for suitably independent observations as the sample size grows.
- Its central failure mode is that the `1/√N` benefit only materializes when exposures are genuinely independent — the law of large numbers is doing all the work, and it delivers nothing against a shock that hits many members at once.
- Birthday-Bound Calculation
- Its strength is that it demolishes the linear-occupancy fallacy in one line: it is the fastest way to show that a namespace can be dangerous while 99.9999% empty, and it gives every downstream choice — resize, partition, detect — a quantitative anchor.
This sourceProvides a quantitative birthday-problem calculation for collision risk.
- Its strength is that it demolishes the linear-occupancy fallacy in one line: it is the fastest way to show that a namespace can be dangerous while 99.9999% empty, and it gives every downstream choice — resize, partition, detect — a quantitative anchor.
- Birthday-Bound Calculator
- Its strength is speed and clarity: it converts a vague sense of abundance into a defensible number in the time it takes to type two inputs, and it exposes the counter-intuitive early onset of collision risk that the birthday problem is famous for.
This sourceUses the birthday problem to demonstrate that collision risk becomes substantial with surprisingly few draws.
- Its strength is speed and clarity: it converts a vague sense of abundance into a defensible number in the time it takes to type two inputs, and it exposes the counter-intuitive early onset of collision risk that the birthday problem is famous for.
- Identifier-Space Capacity Check
- It leans on the pigeonhole certainty at the far end but does the real work well before it, in the probabilistic middle.
This sourceContrasts pigeonhole certainty at full capacity with probabilistic collision risk that matters well before exhaustion.
- It leans on the pigeonhole certainty at the far end but does the real work well before it, in the probabilistic middle.
- Lifetime Distribution Comparison
- The clarifying anchor is the exponential's memorylessness — the null in which survival tells you nothing about remaining life, against which any claimed aging or Lindy signal must earn its keep.
This sourceEstablishes the exponential distribution’s memoryless property: conditional survival beyond an elapsed time leaves the remaining-life distribution unchanged.
- The clarifying anchor is the exponential's memorylessness — the null in which survival tells you nothing about remaining life, against which any claimed aging or Lindy signal must earn its keep.
- Random-Walk and Diffusion Model
- The mirror error is reading drift into what is only noise — a few lucky steps look like a trend, and a spurious drift is projected forward.
This sourceFeller's analysis of symmetric random walks shows that a zero-drift chance process can produce sustained excursions and runs that look directional.
- The mirror error is reading drift into what is only noise — a few lucky steps look like a trend, and a spurious drift is projected forward.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's ISBN resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 20 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 3 other ways.
- https://www.wiley.com/en-us/An+Introduction+to+Probability+Theory+and+Its+Applications%2C+Volume+1%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9780471257080 ×4
- https://www.wiley.com/en-us/An+Introduction+to+Probability+Theory+and+Its+Applications,+Volume+1,+3rd+Edition-p-9780471257080 ×3
- https://books.google.com/books?id=mfRQAAAAMAAJ ×1
Registry ID ref:299df181154a · see in the full table