Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 12, 2015 at 11:44 history edited Kevin O'Bryant CC BY-SA 3.0
grammar fix
Sep 26, 2012 at 14:11 comment added BSteinhurst The edit brought forth what I knew you were saying but in a less provocative style. I happen to agree with the main point of your answer, I just got stuck on one particular phrase.
Sep 25, 2012 at 20:39 history edited Kevin O'Bryant CC BY-SA 3.0
disclaimer that I'm aware I'm generalizing
Sep 25, 2012 at 20:28 comment added Kevin O'Bryant Well, it was a sweeping question, and I did hedge over and over with "in my experience" and "anecdotally" and "I". I'm aware I'm generalizing like nuts. What I meant, more than a lack of need to be rigorous, is that probabilists (in my meager experience) are comfortable with infinitesimals as rigorous. In light of NSA, that's fine, even if one isn't familiar with the intricacies of internal vs external, saturation, etc.
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:52 comment added Yemon Choi As for 2nd para - well KOB probably has more experience and insight than me here, but this isn't the impression I took (as a non-probabilist, admittedly) from e.g.the Rogers-Williams books on stochastic processes.
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:47 comment added Yemon Choi I'm a little bothered by the sweeping nature of the 1st para. I've never met a Banach algebraist who is enraptured by Beck's monadicity theorem, but I'm not sure that proves much.
Sep 25, 2012 at 2:03 comment added BSteinhurst The idea that "everyone knows that Brownian Motion is the limit of simple random walks. They don't feel the need to make this rigorous, it is just self evident." really bothers me. Just because there is standard machinery that is cited to show the limit exists does not mean that no one feels the need for rigor.
Sep 25, 2012 at 1:44 history answered Kevin O'Bryant CC BY-SA 3.0