Counterexamples in Probability: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:17, 17 April 2024

Revision as of 12:44, 18 April 2024

Line 6:

==Reception==

Robert W. Hayden, reviewing the book for the [[Mathematical Association of America]], found it unsuitable for reading cover-to-cover, while recommending it as a reference for "graduate students and probabilists...the small audience whose needs match the title and level."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://maa.org/press/maa-reviews/counterexamples-in-probability |title=Counterexamples in Probability |website=[[MAA Reviews]] |publisher=[[Mathematical Association of America]] |date=2014-10-27 |access-date=2024-04-17 |first=Robert W. |last=Hayden}}</ref> Similarly, Geoffrey Grimmett called the book an "excellent browse" that, despite being a "serious work of scholarship" would not be suitable as a course textbook.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Geoffrey |last=Grimmett |title=none |journal=[[Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A]] |volume=152 |number=1 |pages=135-136 |doi=10.2307/2982850 |year=1989}}</ref> R. W. Hammett wrote that it "should become a classic supplement" for those students who wish to togo above and beyond their ordinary course requirements, and that "it should also become essential to those who plan to work in the field."<ref>{{cite journal|first=R. W. |last=Hammond |title=none |journal=[[Journal of the American Statistical Association]] |volume=85 |number=410 |page=592 |year=1990 |doi=10.2307/2289807}}</ref> D. R. Grey gave it a positive evaluation as a reference text while noting that the counterexamples it includes range "from those accessible to first-year undergraduates ... to those only comprehensible to specialists in stochastic processes".<ref>{{cite journal|first=D. R. |last=Grey |title=none |journal=[[The Statistician]] |volume=38 |number=1 |year=1989 |pages=79-80 |doi=10.2307/2349025}}</ref>

Richard Durrett gave a more negative review, saying that "Most readers will learn a few interesting things" but regarding most of the counterexamples to be well-known or redundant. While Durrett appreciated the illustrations by A. T. Fomenko,<ref>{{cite journal|jstor=27855910 |first=Richard |last=Durrett |title=none |journal=[[American Scientist]] |volume=77 |number=4 |year=1989 |page=405}}</ref> the more positive review by F. W. Steutel did not, calling them a "rather unhappy cross" between [[Salvador Dalí|Dalí]] and [[M. C. Escher|Escher]].<ref>{{cite journal|first=F. W. |last=Steutel |year=1989 |title=none |journal=[[Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society]] |volume=21 |number=3 |pages=300-301 |doi=10.1112/blms/21.3.300}}</ref>