Citing D. Voiculescu, “Around 1982, I realized that the right way to look at certain operator algebra problems was by imitating some basic probability theory. More precisely, in noncommutative probability theory a new kind of independence can be defined by replacing tensor products with free products and this can help understand the von Neumann algebras of free groups. The subject has evolved into a kind of parallel to basic probability theory, which should be called free probability theory.”

Thus, Voiculescu's first motivation to introduce free probability was the analysis of the von Neumann algebras of free groups. One of his central observations was that such groups can be equipped with tracial states (also called traces), which resemble expectations in classical probability, whereas the property of freeness, once properly stated, can be seen as a notion similar to independence in classical probability. This led him to the statement

free probability theory=noncommutative probability theory+ free independence.

These two components are the basis for a probability theory for noncommutative variables where many concepts taken from probability theory such as the notions of laws, convergence in law, independence, central limit theorem, Brownian motion, entropy and more can be naturally defined. For instance, the law of one self-adjoint variable is simply given by the traces of its powers (which generalizes the definition through moments of compactly supported probability measures on the real line), and the joint law of several self-adjoint noncommutative variables is defined by the collection of traces of words in these variables.

The study of random matrices, and in particular the properties of their eigenvalues, has emerged from the applications, first in data analysis and later as statistical models for heavy-nuclei atoms. Thus, the field of random matrices owes its existence to applications. Over the years, however, it became clear that models related to random matrices play an important role in areas of pure mathematics. Moreover, the tools used in the study of random matrices came themselves from different and seemingly unrelated branches of mathematics.

At this point in time, the topic has evolved enough that the newcomer, especially if coming from the field of probability theory, faces a formidable and somewhat confusing task in trying to access the research literature. Furthermore, the background expected of such a newcomer is diverse, and often has to be supplemented before a serious study of random matrices can begin.

We believe that many parts of the field of random matrices are now developed enough to enable one to expose the basic ideas in a systematic and coherent way. Indeed, such a treatise, geared toward theoretical physicists, has existed for some time, in the form of Mehta's superb book [Meh91]. Our goal in writing this book has been to present a rigorous introduction to the basic theory of random matrices, including free probability, that is sufficiently self-contained to be accessible to graduate students in mathematics or related sciences who have mastered probability theory at the graduate level, but have not necessarily been exposed to advanced notions of functional analysis, algebra or geometry.

This book is concerned with random matrices. Given the ubiquitous role that matrices play in mathematics and its application in the sciences and engineering, it seems natural that the evolution of probability theory would eventually pass through random matrices. The reality, however, has been more complicated (and interesting). Indeed, the study of random matrices, and in particular the properties of their eigenvalues, has emerged from the applications, first in data analysis (in the early days of statistical sciences, going back to Wishart [Wis28]), and later as statistical models for heavy-nuclei atoms, beginning with the seminal work of Wigner [Wig55]. Still motivated by physical applications, at the able hands of Wigner, Dyson, Mehta and co-workers, a mathematical theory of the spectrum of random matrices began to emerge in the early 1960s, and links with various branches of mathematics, including classical analysis and number theory, were established. While much progress was initially achieved using enumerative combinatorics, gradually, sophisticated and varied mathematical tools were introduced: Fredholm determinants (in the 1960s), diffusion processes (in the 1960s), integrable systems (in the 1980s and early 1990s), and the Riemann–Hilbert problem (in the 1990s) all made their appearance, as well as new tools such as the theory of free probability (in the 1990s). This wide array of tools, while attesting to the vitality of the field, presents, however, several formidable obstacles to the newcomer, and even to the expert probabilist.

In this chapter, we introduce several tools useful in the study of matrix ensembles beyond GUE, GOE and Wigner matrices. We begin by setting up in Section 4.1 a general framework for the derivation of joint distribution of eigenvalues in matrix ensembles and then we use it to derive joint distribution results for several classical ensembles, namely, the GOE/GUE/GSE, the Laguerre ensembles (corresponding to Gaussian Wishart matrices), the Jacobi ensembles (corresponding to random projectors) and the unitary ensembles (corresponding to random matrices uniformly distributed in classical compact Lie groups). In Section 4.2, we study a class of point processes that are determinantal; the eigenvalues of the GUE, as well as those for the unitary ensembles, fall within this class. We derive a representation for determinantal processes and deduce from it a CLT for the number of eigenvalues in an interval, as well as ergodic consequences. In Section 4.3, we analyze time-dependent random matrices, where the entries are replaced by Brownian motions. The introduction of Brownian motion allows us to use the powerful theory of Ito integration. Generalizations of the Wigner law, CLTs, and large deviations are discussed. We then present in Section 4.4 a discussion of concentration inequalities and their applications to random matrices, substantially extending Section 2.3. Concentration results for matrices with independent entries, as well as for matrices distributed according to Haar measure on compact groups, are discussed.

This study focuses on the influence of the Lancashire cotton lobby in the creation and development of a port at Manchester for ocean-going ships. On the surface, the idea seems paradoxical on several grounds. Manchester was not far from Liverpool, England's second port, a city connected to every part of the world, dealing with the world's leading exchanges, and with docks able to berth and unload the largest steamers and sailing vessels. Moreover, Manchester and other Lancashire industrial towns were served by an extensive railway and canal network. Finally, to turn a city situated thirty-six miles from the sea into a seaport involved digging a canal from the Mersey estuary that was navigable by deep-draught ships. The idea was not new, and several schemes had been proposed (and rejected) previously. But the issue came to a head at the beginning of the 1880s when British manufactures (especially cotton products) began to face intense international competition. In this context, the recent slump in the traffic of Liverpool pointed out by the local mercantile community and a general discontent with the slow pace in improving the situation revived the idea of a canal. Debates over the construction of such a waterway opened in Parliament in 1883. The bill was finally approved in 1885, and the canal opened in 1894.

At the outset, the scheme was promoted by a provisional committee, but after the bill received Royal assent the Ship Canal Company (SCC) was created. Lancashire cotton men played prominent roles in both these bodies. Their leader until 1887 was Daniel Adamson, an engineer who also chaired the board of a Manchester spinning concern. He was assisted by a number of other prominent spinners and manufacturers, including Edward Walmsley and Joseph Leigh. Both were Stockport spinners, but their influence was much broader: the former presided over the Cotton Spinner's Association, while the latter was Mayor of Stockport on several occasions and was also Adamson's son-in-law. Another prominent supporter was William Richardson, who was not a spinner but represented Piatt Bros, and Co., a firm which made cotton processing machinery. The board of the SCC also included J.K. Bythell. Before becoming the board's chairman and vice-president of the Manchester Cotton Association in 1894, Bythell had been resident partner in India for Gaddum and Co. and chairman of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce.