There are many ways of reading a book of the book. One could take a look at the table of content, read a few pages and skip the rest; one could look for the main line of reasoning not bothering about details; one could read carefully from cover to cover (this does not happen to often); and one could not only to read everything, and also to ponder over the argument (this is rather exceptional) but even to enter into discussion with the author. Such readers should be precious to every author. I had a happy chance to have at least one such reader on whose critical remarks I now want to comment. After politely praising my book, professor Burdzy carefully classified his remarks into four groups: errors, omissions, misleading information, and discussion. Errors (happily enough, only a few have been found) are not to be discussed with but corrected. I readily admit omissions; at least in some cases they could be called selection effects. As far as misleading material is concerned, I should say that to mislead the specialist is not the same as to mislead a common reader. In such a subtle matter as probability calculus many things depend on interpretation and interpretations are usually manifold. My account of interpretative questions related to probability are based on standard monographs and textbooks in the field (they are quoted in the book). It is a pity that, when working on the book, I did not know the book by professor Burdzy; if I did, perhaps my presentation of subjective interpretation would have been different. And finally, discussion…, I am open for it. A book that not excite discussion is a failed book.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.