Talk:Ars Conjectandi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ars Conjectandi has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
GA Class
Mid Importance
 Field: Probability and statistics (historical)
WikiProject Statistics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Shafer article reference[edit]

I'm not sure about removing the link to Glenn Shafer's self-hosted copy of his essay on Ars Conjectandi. One advantage of keeping that link is that it's available free. The other is that it's possibly a newer version than the one in Econometrics (I haven't checked). Let me know if anyone minds if I add a 'url=' parameter to the current article reference that goes to Shafer's version. This would allow both versions to be reached, since there is a DOI for the other. Glenn Shafer I think cares about Ars Conjectandi in part due to the Dempster-Shafer theory. The latter might conceivably deserve a sentence or two here if anyone can figure out how to state the connection properly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Added. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The link to Nicolaus II (1695 - 1726) is wrong. The Ars conjectandi seems to have been published by his cousin, Nicolaus the younger (son of Jacob), cf. Edith Dudley Sylla, Jacob Bernoulli: The Art of Conjecturing together with Letter to a Friend on Sets in Court Tennis, Baltimore 2006 (page 60sq. with further literature on the subject).

Notes to self[edit]

All three sections need major revamping, especially content. Legacy will probably be changed least, with some more conflicting views, actual influences (Niklaus and Montmort are not even mentioned; unacceptable). Background expanded to include specifics of correspondences, etc. along with why it wasn't published and the events that led to Niklaus's publishing of the work. Content needs probably to be completely rewritten to be a much better summary of everything. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Laplace in the Legacy section, how come? (Manoguru (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

Removal of Cardan's Image[edit]

I think the figure that really deserves to be on the historical Background section is that of Huygens and not of Cardan. Cardan only considered the most simplest problems, and the prior publication of Huygens book rendered his innovations to be insignificant, both in terms of technical contribution as well as later day influence. Huygens little book beats everybody else's in terms of date of publication. (Manoguru (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC))