3 ms·

I've seen quite a few, actually... many of them on Hacker News. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/

I've seen quite a few, actually... many of them on Hacker News. http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/ http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/index.html http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/index.html http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-050JInformation-and-EntropySpring2003/CourseHome/index.htm http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Compute... http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/slpj-book-1987/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers... These are from my own bookmarks... looks like there are a lot more at http://www.reddit.com/r/csbooks/top/?t=all http://www.reddit.com/r/csbooks/top/?t=all

jimbokun 17y ago
Wow! The Jaynes book is on the order of 3,000 pages! Looks like a potentially comprehensive reference for all things probability. Can anyone comment on the quality of the writing?
- RyanMcGreal 17y ago
  It's probably pretty good. (Sorry.)
- Herring 17y ago
  More long winded than most, but it's normal "physics" writing. Very clear. I recommend the preface whether or not you intend to read the whole thing.
- yaroslavvb 17y ago
  It's good, with a heavy focus on frequentist statistics and maximum entropy approach
  - mreid 17y ago
    I think to say the book has a heavy focus on frequentist statistics is a little misleading. Jaynes discusses a lot of frequentist methods but the emphasis is on doing so from a very Bayesian point of view.
    - yaroslavvb 17y ago
      He uses Bayesian methods in some cases, and non-Bayesian method in others. For instance on page 1412 he describes a problem for which Bayesian methods are "not appropriate." http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc14g.ps http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc14g.ps This is a bit of an anathema to purist Bayesians like Radford Neal who say that Jaynes Maximum Entropy method is not consistent with Bayesian methods and that it "doesn't make any sense" http://groups.google.com/group/sci.stat.consult/msg/2cf57ceb8ec46e0f?dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/sci.stat.consult/msg/2cf57ceb...
- Eliezer 17y ago
  Jaynes died before he finished it. It's still one of the most important books I ever read.

jimbokun 17y ago

Wow! The Jaynes book is on the order of 3,000 pages! Looks like a potentially comprehensive reference for all things probability. Can anyone comment on the quality of the writing?

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
It's probably pretty good. (Sorry.)
Herring 17y ago
More long winded than most, but it's normal "physics" writing. Very clear. I recommend the preface whether or not you intend to read the whole thing.
yaroslavvb 17y ago
It's good, with a heavy focus on frequentist statistics and maximum entropy approach
- mreid 17y ago
  I think to say the book has a heavy focus on frequentist statistics is a little misleading. Jaynes discusses a lot of frequentist methods but the emphasis is on doing so from a very Bayesian point of view.
  - yaroslavvb 17y ago
    He uses Bayesian methods in some cases, and non-Bayesian method in others. For instance on page 1412 he describes a problem for which Bayesian methods are "not appropriate." http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc14g.ps http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc14g.ps This is a bit of an anathema to purist Bayesians like Radford Neal who say that Jaynes Maximum Entropy method is not consistent with Bayesian methods and that it "doesn't make any sense" http://groups.google.com/group/sci.stat.consult/msg/2cf57ceb8ec46e0f?dmode=source http://groups.google.com/group/sci.stat.consult/msg/2cf57ceb...
Eliezer 17y ago
Jaynes died before he finished it. It's still one of the most important books I ever read.