Search

After Bayes, the oldest Bayesian account of enumerative induction is given by Laplace's so-called rule of succession: if all $n$ observed instances of a phenomenon to date exhibit a given character, the probability that the next instance of that phenomenon will also exhibit the character is $\frac{n+1}{n+2}$. Laplace's rule however has the apparently counterintuitive mathematical consequence that the corresponding "universal generalization" (every future observation of this type will also exhibit that character) has zero probability. In 1932, the British scientist J. B. S. Haldane proposed an alternative rule giving a universal generalization the positive probability $\frac{n+1}{n+2} \times \frac{n+3}{n+2}$. A year later Harold Jeffreys proposed essentially the same rule in the case of a finite population. A related variant rule results in a predictive probability of $\frac{n+1}{n+2} \times \frac{n+4}{n+3}$. These arguably elegant adjustments of the original Laplacean form have the advantage that they give predictions better aligned with intuition and common sense. In this paper we discuss J. B. S. Haldane's rule and its variants, placing them in their historical context, and relating them to subsequent philosophical discussions.

The two of us have shared a fascination with James Victor Uspensky's 1937 textbook $Introduction \, to \, Mathematical \, Probability$ ever since our graduate student days: it contains many interesting results not found in other books on the same subject in the English language, together with many non-trivial examples, all clearly stated with careful proofs. We present some of Uspensky's gems to a modern audience hoping to tempt others to read Uspensky for themselves, as well as report on a few of the other mathematical topics he also wrote about (for example, his book on number theory contains early results about perfect shuffles). Uspensky led an interesting life: a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, he spoke at the 1924 International Congress of Mathematicians in Toronto before leaving Russia in 1929 and coming to the US and Stanford. Comparatively little has been written about him in English; the second half of this paper attempts to remedy this., Comment: 49 pages

Asymptotics for Dickman's number theoretic function $\rho(u)$, as $u \rightarrow \infty$, were given de Bruijn and Alladi, and later in sharper form by Hildebrand and Tenenbaum. The perspective in these works is that of analytic number theory. However, the function $\rho(\cdot)$ also arises as a constant multiple of a certain probability density connected with a scale invariant Poisson process, and we observe that Dickman asymptotics can be interpreted as a Gaussian local limit theorem for the sum of arrivals in a tilted Poisson process, combined with untilting. In this paper we exploit and extend this reasoning to obtain analogous asymptotic formulas for a class of functions including, in addition to Dickman's function, the densities of random variables having L\'evy measure with support contained in $[0,1]$, subject to mild regularity assumptions., Comment: 30 pages

Let $M$ be a random $m \times n$ matrix with binary entries and i.i.d. rows. The weight (i.e., number of ones) of a row has a specified probability distribution, with the row chosen uniformly at random given its weight. Let $N(n,m)$ denote the number of left null vectors in ${0,1}^m$ for $M$ (including the zero vector), where addition is mod 2. We take $n, m \to \infty$, with $m/n \to \alpha > 0$, while the weight distribution may vary with $n$ but converges weakly to a limiting distribution on ${3, 4, 5, ...}$; let $W$ denote a variable with this limiting distribution. Identifying $M$ with a hypergraph on $n$ vertices, we define the 2-core of $M$ as the terminal state of an iterative algorithm that deletes every row incident to a column of degree 1. We identify two thresholds $\alpha^*$ and $\underline{\alpha}$, and describe them analytically in terms of the distribution of $W$. Threshold $\alpha^*$ marks the infimum of values of $\alpha$ at which $n^{-1} \log{\mathbb{E} [N(n,m)}]$ converges to a positive limit, while $\underline{\alpha}$ marks the infimum of values of $\alpha$ at which there is a 2-core of non-negligible size compared to $n$ having more rows than non-empty columns. We have $1/2 \leq \alpha^* \leq \underline{\alpha} \leq 1$, and typically these inequalities are strict; for example when $W = 3$ almost surely, numerics give $\alpha^* = 0.88949 ...$ and $\underline{\alpha} = 0.91793 ...$ (previous work on this model has mainly been concerned with such cases where $W$ is non-random). The threshold of values of $\alpha$ for which $N(n,m) \geq 2$ in probability lies in $[\alpha^*,\underline{\alpha}]$ and is conjectured to equal $\underline{\alpha}$. The random row weight setting gives rise to interesting new phenomena not present in the non-random case that has been the focus of previous work., Comment: 49 pages, 4 figures