Logical issues with the weak law of large numbers and its interpretation In several probability textbooks I have found what amounts to the following argument:

Let A be an event in some probabilistic experiment. Let p=P(A) be the
  probability of this event occurring in n trials. Let $M$ be the
  fraction of time $A$ occurs in $n$ trials:
$M = \frac{X_1+...+X_n}{n}$
where $X_i$ is 1 whenever A occurs, and 0 otherwise; in particular
  $E[X_i]=p$. From simple properties of expectation and variance:
$E[M] = \frac{E[X_1+...+X_n]}{n} = \frac{E[X_1]+...+E[X_n]}{n} =
 \frac{np}{n} = p$ $Var[M] = \frac{Var[X_1+...+X_n]}{n^2} = \frac{Var[X_1]+...+Var[X_n]}{n^2} = \frac{n\sigma^2}{n^2} =
\frac{\sigma^2}{n}$
So using Chebyshev's inequality:
$P(|M-p|>\epsilon) \le \frac{\sigma^2}{n\epsilon^2}$
And so:
$\lim_{n \to \infty} P(|M-p|) = 0$

It is often claimed that this derivation links the mathematical theory of probability with the concept of frequency, but I think is not true and the derivation is either pointless or tautological, for consider the following: if you proceed purely from mathematical axioms, the result holds true in an abstract sense, but there is no logical reason for the particular quantities to have the interpretations we give to them intuitively, e.g. one can not interpret M as a frequency of occurrence without adding an additional axiom specifying what P(A) is, at least this is how it seems to me.
On the other hand, if you choose the frequency interpretation of probability, the moment you say "let p=P(A) be the probability of A" the very same moment you make an assumption of  existence of a single number p that is the limit of the relative frequency of occurrence of the event A, so what amounts to placing:
$\lim_{n \to \infty} P(|M-p|) = 0$
among the axioms.
Ideally I would like to know what someone familiar with mathematical logic or research in foundations of mathematics where such issues are examined thinks about this, while in areas like set theory there are volumes written about issues of this kind, in probability theory, while there are plenty of philosophical books about various ways of interpreting probability, I have not found a single work on the mathematical logic of the subject, besides Kolmogorov's Grundbegriffe. My questions are the following:
Is my reasoning correct?
Is there any reason I miss for this derivation to be important or interesting in some sense?
Are there any works that examine probability theory from the standpoint of mathematical logic, where issues of this kind are made more clear?
For reference, textbooks are either very mysterious about this, or altogether avoid motivating or interpreting the result. Jim Pitman's "Probability", page 101 this is called a "mathematical confirmation of our intuitive idea of probability as a limit of long-run sequences". In Bertsekas and Tsitskilis, page 270, M is called the empirical frequency, and it is said that "Loosely speaking, this allows us to conclude that em­pirical frequencies are faithful estimates of p. Alternatively, this is a step towards interpreting the probability p as the frequency of occurrence of A.". Mark Kac in "Probability and related topics in the physical sciences", page 4, writes:

Actually, the theorem says disappointingly little. All it says, in
  fact, is the following: If the probability of a certain event was
  calculated in accordance with certain assumptions and rules, then the
  probability (again calculated, according to the same assumptions and
  rules) that the frequency with which the event will occur in a large
  assembly of trials will differ significantly form the calculated
  probability is low.

In the notes for a probability theory course by Rota and Baclawski, the interpretation seems more similar to what I have written above:

This is essentially just a psychological theorem, for it does not
  provide the information necessary for concrete applications. The
  Central Limit Theorem is far more useful and in fact the law of large
  numbers is a consequence of the Central Limit Theorem. We leave the
  proof as an exercise.
In any case the law of large numbers is a purely mathematical theorem.
  In order for it to make sense we must already have the concepts of
  probability, random variables, means, variances, etc. We cannot use
  this as a definition of probability. But we cannot even use the law of
  large numbers as a justification of the frequentist point of view.
  This point of view says that probabilities represent a physically
  measurable quantity (at least in principle). But there is no concept
  of a physical "measurement" corresponding to the mathematical concept
  of the limit:
lim n->inf of (X_1+...+X_n)/n
The relationship between physical experiments and the theory of
  probability is much more subtle than the frequentist point of view
  would have one belive.

Finally, Grinstead and Snell write what seems also very reasonable, but not very precise:

The Law of Large Numbers, which is a theorem proved about the
  mathematical model of probability, shows that this model is consistent
  with the frequency interpretation of probability.

 A: As the link provided by the previous poster also states, the LLN is a result relating the axiomatic concept of probability to the statistical concept of frequency. Probability theory per se does not deal with the physical meaning of probability. 
From a philosophical perspective, you can either be a frequentist which implies that probability is only meaningful as a frequency derived from repeating your experiment; or you can be a naturalist (aka Bayesian) which implies that probability is a measure of the uncertainty in inherent nature and that frequency is a way to assess that uncertainty. And that is the main philosophical contribution of the LLN and Glivenko-Cantelli lemma.
I use the word naturalist because physicists were thinking about probability this way long before statisticians and their frequentist interpretation muddied the waters. Frequentism denies meaning to statements like the probability of rain tomorrow is 45% and also all of quantum mechanics.
I would suggest Cox's seminal paper Probability, Frequency, and Reasonable Expectation in American Journal of Physics 14:1-13 (1946) 
A: I finally found a particularly clear example in the book "A Treatise of Probability" by Keynes, that I think shows beyond any doubt that if p is anything but a number defined a priori to precisely satisfy $\lim_{n \to \infty} P(|M-p|) = 0$, the WLLN ceases to be interpretable as a valid statement about frequencies:

The following example from Czuber will be
  sufficient for the purpose of illustration. Czuber’s argument is as
  follows: In the period 1866–1877 there were registered in Austria
m = 4,311,076 male births
n = 4,052,193 female births
s = 8,363,269
for the succeeding period, 1877–1899, we are given only
m' = 6,533,961 male births;
what conclusion can we draw as to the number n of female births? We
  can conclude, according to Czuber, that the most probable value
n' = nm'/m = 6,141,587
and that there is a probability P = .9999779 that n will lie between
  the limits 6,118,361 and 6,164,813. It seems in plain opposition to
  good sense that on such evidence we should be able with practical
  certainty P = .9999779 = 1 − 1/45250 to estimate the number of female
  births within such narrow limits. And we see that the conditions laid
  down in § 11 have been flagrantly neglected. The number of cases, over
  which the prediction based on Bernoulli’s Theorem is to extend,
  actually exceeds the number of cases upon which the à priori
  probability has been based. It may be added that for the period,
  1877–1894, the actual value of n did lie between the estimated limits,
  but that for the period, 1895–1905, it lay outside limits to which the
  same method had attributed practical certainty.

Maybe this is something obvious in retrospect, that additional assumptions might be needed to interpret probabilities and that those assumptions might overlap theorems of abstract probability theory, but I have browsed through literally dozens of textbooks and they all either do not provide any interpretation or motivation for this result, or say something false or "not even false" - too vague to even have any meaning. Richer with this insight I actually found the following statement in Kolmogorov's Grundbegriffe, in section 2 of chapter 1, "The Relation to Experimental Data":

We apply the theory of probability to the actual world of experiment
  in the following manner:
...
4) Under certain conditions, which we shall not discuss here, we may
  assume that the event A which may or may not occur under conditions S,
  is assigned a real number P(A) which has the following
  characteristics:
a) One can be practically certain that if the complex of conditions S
  is repeated a large number of times, n, then if m be the number of
  occurrences of event A, the ratio m/n will differ very slightly from
  P(A).

As far as I understand, this is Kolmogorov essentially saying the WLLN becomes an additional axiom if any attempts are made to give interpretation to his very general theory, at least in the particular interpretation he envisioned. Unless this is done, there is no ground for treating M as a relative frequency, it is a term of unknown interpretation, just as a line is an entity of unknown interpretation from within the axiomatic framework of geometry. WLLN is the very assumption that allows interpreting M as a relative frequency. This actually contradicts statements of the kind claimed in one of the answers and stated in some textbooks:

LLN is a result relating the axiomatic concept of probability to the
  statistical concept of frequency.

It is either a theorem that has nothing to do with frequency, or an assumption or additional axiom.
A: I believe my answer here might be what you're looking for. I'm also assuming the question asked there is close to what you're asking here.
A: This became rather long for a comment.
I think we have here a model which was designed to be a good model of real-life problems. The real decision which is being made when using the ideas of probability is that this is a good model. And if there is reason to believe it is a good model, then we believe that the consequences we derive from the model apply to our real life situation.
Here this is not just that the limit is $p$ but also that the variation in outcomes is insufficient to prevent there being a limit. How would we measure probability in the real world without such a limit existing, you ask. Well a priori it is conceivable that our situation is wholly symmetrical between outcomes, with no reason to believe that one is preferred to another, yet the inherent variability of the process is so great that no limit exists. If our model applies, this cannot happen. And the model does apply, and constrains our ability to think what the world might be like if it didn't.
If the model didn't work so well, we'd be using a different model.
A: Take a look at Burdzy's book,
The Search for Certainty: On the Clash of Science and Philosophy of Probability.
A: As my answer on the other question, in a sense you are correct.
You are correct because obviously the mathematical axioms include the derivation of the LLN or WLLN (i presume this is what one could call a "weak" tautology), however it is a question if the other way follows too (meaning assuming LLN or WLLN, derive the axioms of probability) which can be answered in the negative (since the simple axioms of probability hold in other cases except LLN or WLLN).
