78. Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability, Vol. 8
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability Vol. 8. Collected Translations Most papers describe the moral situation in Soviet science Compiled and translated by Oscar Sheynin Berlin 2016 Contents Introduction by the compiler I. K. Hermann, The general theory of statistics (extracts), 1809 II. [P. B.] Kozlovsky, About hope, 1836 III. V. E. Prudnikov, P. L. Chebyshev and Moscow University in the 1840s (extract), 1948 IV. O. Sheynin, Chebyshev’s note of 1870. General information, unpublished V. N. Ya. Vygodsky, Mathematics and its representatives in Moscow University during the second half of the 19th century (extract), 1948 VIa. Editorial, 1922 VIb. An appeal. Report of the Congress of Russian Academic Bodies (extract), 1923 VII. M. Yu. Sorokina, “It is impossible to keep silent anymore”. From the epistolary heritage of Sergei Fedorovich Oldenburg, 1995 VIII. N. S. Ermolaeva, On the so-called Leningrad mathematical front, 1995 IXa. L. V. Kantorovich, Discussion [of the report of A. V. Topchiev at the yearly conference of the Academy of Sciences], 1959 IXb. L. V. Kantorovich, On the state of the economic science and its problems, 1990 IXc. L. B. Sheynin, A cunning ideology and economic terminology, 2005 X. S. P. Novikov, Mathematicians and physicists of the [Soviet] Academy in the 1960s – 1980s, 1995 XI. S. P. Novikov, Mathematics and history, 1997 XII. A. V. Byalko, Will we destroy the entire ancient world? 1997 XIII. I. Grekova, Methodological peculiarities of modern applied mathematics, 1976 XIV. A. Orlov, On the perestroika of the statistical science and its application, 1990 Introduction by the Compiler Notation Notation S, G, i means that an English translation of the appropriate paper is available on my cite www.sheynin.de which is being copied by Google, Oscar Sheynin, Home, in Document i. General comments on most items [i] Karl Fedorovich (Ferdinand?) Hermann (1767, Danzig – 1838, Petersburg), was an economist and statistician. Since 1795 he lived in Russia, was professor in Petersburg. In 1821, he and three other professors were compelled to leave the university, and his books were banned. Being an extraordinary academician, he continued his scientific work and was elected full academician in 1835 (Great Sov. Enc., 3rd edition, vol. 6, 1971). Druzinin (pp. 44 – 45 of his Khrestomatia) noted that, contrary to his § 2, Hermann criticized Russian reality in his lectures and that that reality refuted his optimistic views expressed in § 12. Hermann did not mention either political arithmetic, or insurance of life (which at that time, however, hardly existed in any civilized way in Russia) or medical statistics, and in this respect he regrettably followed Schlözer (and apparently Achenwall). Did not visitations of deadly epidemics belong to remarkable features? And at least until the 20th century neither did population statistics study medical statistics. Hermann (§ 2) defined the theory of statistics as the science of the initial notions of statistics, but did not even mention those notions. He (§ 9) also provided a pattern for statistically studying a state. [ii] The author was evidently the diplomatist Petr Borisovich Kozlovsky (1783 – 1840). This statement is indirectly supported by his quotations from ancient classics and references to recent history (Napoleon, Stuarts). He certainly knew something about the history of probability but not really enough (see Notes 1 and 7), and his story about Duke Dalberg should have been provided in a supplement, if at all. I doubt that his contribution had any impact; Gnedenko (1951, p. 108) only mentioned it (and provided a mistaken year of its publication), but did not recall it in his booklet of 1984 devoted to Ostrogradsky. I note finally that the Editor of the Sovremennik was Pushkin. [iii] Over many years, the Petersburg Academy of Sciences awarded prizes for contributions in various branches of knowledge. The money was donated by Pavel Grigorievich Demidov (1798 – 1840) who became an honorary member of the Academy. The lyceum in Jaroslavl was apparently called after him. It had been in existence in 1803 – 1918; at least in 1834 – 1868 it was associated with Moscow University. Its curriculums seem to have been good enough; they included political arithmetic, and, as Stroganov’s recommendation suggested, some probability as well. Chebyshev indeed succeeded in proving important stochastic theorems only by algebra; he had not mentioned that he only dealt with independent variables but at that time this omission was general. Note, however, that even Jakob Bernoulli had managed by algebra with respect to his great theorem. 3 I believe that a general survey of the theory of probability as well as its applications by Daniel Bernoulli and Quetelet, to name only two scientists, would have been much more important the more so since Chebyshev’s derivations were necessarily burdensome. After compiling his Essay (1845), Chebyshev (1846) published its valuable original supplement (Bernstein 1945/1964, p. 412). See its detailed study (Prokhorov 1986). Note also that Chebyshev himself (1879/1880, 1936, pp. 162 – 163) described one of his intermediate results in a simpler way. He consistently estimated the errors of pre- limiting relations, and (1846, p. 259) admonished Poisson: The celebrated geometer did not provide the limits of the error allowed by his approximate analysis and […] the demonstration does not possess the appropriate rigor. Here, indeed, is Poisson elsewhere (1837, § 84): There exists a very high probability that these unknown chances little differ from the ratios … Actually, Poisson followed Laplace who had resolutely transferred probability theory from pure (in the sense of mid-18th century: Jakob Bernoulli, De Moivre, Bayes) to applied science. The concluding part of Prudnikov’s extract is unsatisfactory. First, it hints at Chebyshev’s interest in insurance, but he never discussed that subject. And, in his lectures (1879/1880, 1936, p. 214), when he described lotteries, he even stated that they are equally fair if the expected gains are the same in all of them. For the gambler, this is patently wrong since it contradicts both common sense and the opinions of eminent philosophers and mathematicians. The possibility of large gains, which have extremely low probabilities, is best ignored. But did not Lyapunov only make fragmentary notes, as Prudnikov (1964, p. 183) decided, when writing down Chebyshev’s lectures? And, finally, it is well known that up to the mid-19th century insurance had been inseparably linked with cheating. Second, Buniyakovsky’s main contribution to insurance was a chapter in his treatise (1846). There, on p. 215, he noted that the moral benefit of the insured consisted in ensuring his future. True, in the same chapter he discussed marine insurance by means of Daniel Bernoulli’s moral expectation. Prudnikov (1964, pp. 28 – 30) reprinted the text of the entire extract. [v] Vygodsky made a few mistakes in his references. In general, his description of Nekrasov’s activities ought to be corrected, but he provided related useful information. Here are my additional comments. 1. At the end of the 1890s, Nekrasov did not stop studying mathematical problems, cf. Note 6. 2. In his correspondence with Markov, Nekrasov dropped his refusal to substantiate the statements of the 1898 paper, although added that the required work was tremendous. That paper was not compiled in a bureaucratic manner, it was a report providing his results. Something similar happened with Chebyshev’s proof of the central limit theorem (Sheynin 2009, § 13.1-4). 4 3. Markov requested to be excommunicated from the Church in 1912 rather than in 1902. This is a common mistake occasioned by Tolstoy’s excommunication in 1901. However, a few days before his death the Synod discussed whether his excommunication ought to be revoked but resolved to let it stand (newspaper Rech, 8 Nov. 1910, p. 3, anonymous note The Holy Synod and L. N. Tolstoy). In 1912, this episode was hardly forgotten. Markov was not excommunicated; the Synod decided that he had broken away from the Church (Emeliakh 1954, p. 408). I have published many papers which dealt with Nekrasov and translated many pertinent materials. Nekrasov (2004) is a collection of translations of six papers of Nekrasov, two of Markov, one of Liapunov and of a very rare paper by Bortkiewicz as well as of the correspondence of Markov and Nekrasov and of related materials and the Report (1916). Then, see Sheynin (2003 and 2009, § 14.5). This latter source discusses Soloviev (1997) also mentioned in Note 6. [vi-b] Lasarevsky Nikolai Ivanovich (1868 – 1921) and Tichvinskiy Mikhail Mikhailovich (1868 – 1921) were shot together with 57 others. They both (and perhaps the others) were rehabilitated. I doubt that the Appeal, published in Russian, was at least somewhat effective. [vii] The following archival letters sent by Oldenburg are published by Sorokina on pp. 111 – 119 of the same source: To Gorky, in 1920, 1922, 1929 and 1932; to Lunacharsky, in 1922; to wife, in 1929; to Enukidse in 1926, signed by Karpinsky, the President of the Academy, and Oldenburg. (Enukidze was chairman of the Commission of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party, shot in 1937). The Commission controlled the everyday activities of the Academy. Here is a phrase from the letter to Lunacharsky (p. 112): The [current] phenomenon is exceptionally menacing since it is a sure indication of the occurring loss of the life of Russian scientists and, consequently, of Russian science. On Oldenburg see also Tokareva (2007, p. 125). [viii] Apart from the stated in my Notes, I indicate that Ermolaeva had not compiled her Bibliography sufficiently good: in many cases the page numbers are not provided. Then, in some places her story is too detailed. Tokareva (2007b) discussed planning in mathematics (partly, in science in general). She indicated that in 1931, at a high- ranking conference in Moscow, quite reasonable proposals were formulated, for example, on planning the work of scientific bodies.