# What is more elementary than: Introduction to Stochastic Processes by Lawler

I have trouble to reading this book!

What book is more elementary/preliminary than this book: Introduction to Stochastic Processes by Lawler

It is very difficult to answer your question with the information given.

These might be more gentle and the last one uses Maple.

$\bullet$ Introduction to Stochastic Processes, Paul Gerhard Hoel, Sidney C. Port, Charles J. Stone

$\bullet$ Adventures in Stochastic Processes, Sidney I. Resnick

$\bullet$ An Introduction to Stochastic Processes and Their Applications, Petar Todorovic

$\bullet$ An Introduction to Stochastic Processes, Edward P. C. Kao

$\bullet$ Informal Introduction to Stochastic Processes with Maple, Jan Vrbik, Paul Vrbik

Maybe if you can describe what issues you are having, we could provide more guidance.

There are also some older books that are excellent, but I am not at home and the titles are escaping me.

Regards

• Thanks you, i just need some easier book on the subject to read +1 :) – Victor Jan 21 '13 at 16:30
• @Victor: You are welcome! For most students, being able to see actual working code and examples and to play with them is very helpful and instructive, so if you have Maple, I would go with the last as that will provide you with an experimental approach. This will help to solidify the theory for the text you are using. Regards – Amzoti Jan 21 '13 at 16:35
• Nice suggestions, and I like your follow-up recommendation! Combine hands-on + theoretical! – Namaste May 7 '13 at 1:10
• @amWhy: For classes in Stochastic Processes, I cannot tell you how important this is to the learning process. We have so many more wonderful tools to help in this regard (kids today can be so spoiled)! :-) – Amzoti May 7 '13 at 1:14
• Look through the entry for Stochastic process in Wikipedia. You'll find some references and suggestions for further reading.

• Another possibility is to go to a university library, search for "stochastic processes", and sit down to browse through the books available, to see which among them suit your needs. Bring the text you refer to with you, and compare how various texts differ in their coverage and explanations that you find too difficult to comprehend as given in your current text.

• You might want to download the text (available in pdf from Prof. Oliver Knill at Harvard) on "Probability and Stochastic Processes with Applications.". You can compare the text with yours, with no cost to you!

• One additional possibility to consider, which you can preview, is Introduction to Stochastic Processes, by Hoel, Port, and Stone. Peruse the table of contents, and sample the writing to help you determine if you think this might suit your needs.

• Stochastic calculus is quite a different topic than classical introductory stochastic processes. I'm not familiar with the Klebaner text, but judging by the table of contents, the intersection in subject matter with Lawler is fairly minimal. – cardinal Jan 21 '13 at 17:38
• Thanks for pointing that out, @cardinal! – Namaste Jan 21 '13 at 17:48
• You're welcome. Cheers. :) – cardinal Jan 21 '13 at 19:16

Applied Stochastic Processes in science and engineering by Matt Scott from the University of Waterloo is free online. It emphasizes ideas and methods.

http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mscott/Little_Notes.pdf

Stochastic processes by Sheldon Ross is very elementary:

A nonmeasure theoretic introduction to stochastic processes. Considers its diverse range of applications and provides readers with probabilistic intuition and insight in thinking about problems.

Maybe the easiest one to read (I wrote it myself so my point of view is biased) is the following: "Applied Stochastic Processes, Chaos Modeling, and Probabilistic Properties of Numeration Systems." Published June 2, 2018. Author: Vincent Granville, PhD. (104 pages, 16 chapters.)

Here is the link: https://www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/fee-book-applied-stochastic-processes One has to register an account on the site in order to download it.

Hopes this help, Vincent

• While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review – Isaac Browne Jul 8 '18 at 22:05
• @IsaacBrowne (and other reviewers): I disagree with the move to delete this answer. The question itself is a request for references, the answer provides a reference, and is no more or less a link-only answer than half of the other answers. The issue is, I think, that people are concerned with the "spam-like" nature of the answer. Regarding that issue, this may be relevant. – Xander Henderson Jul 8 '18 at 22:38
• @XanderHenderson That makes for three different reasons to close: link-only, self promotion, behind a registration barrier. – Did Jul 9 '18 at 5:39
• @Did (1) In this context, a link-only answer seems appropriate (have you voted to close the other link-only answers to this question?); (2) per the discussion in the meta question I linked to above, self-promotion is tolerable as long as it doesn't go too far; and (3) I don't see the registration barrier as being huge---it is no worse than being required to go to a library to get a book, or to pay money to buy a book. (2) is the only argument that I take seriously in this particular case, and I'm more than willing to concede the point, but I don't think that it is clear-cut. – Xander Henderson Jul 9 '18 at 14:35
• @XanderHenderson (1) No, of course no, link-only answers are not appropriate, here and in general. Actually, this a plague of the "answers" on this site to the requests for references (which makes said "answers" mostly useless) that they too often only provide titles, saying nothing about how and why such and such title is or is not appropriate. In general, the only motive seems to be that the answerer knows the book (and so what?), or even, that they heard about it (and so what, to the square?). (Parenthetically, my votes are none of your business.) (2) Who says that... – Did Jul 10 '18 at 9:01