Cournot lemma as formulated by Chuprov 8 . Also in 1925, he published a fundamentalcontribution [13] where he defined <strong>and</strong> investigated the abovementioned notions, appliedthem for deriving necessary conditions for the law of large numbers, which he, in addition,generalized onto the multidimensional case. Later on this work became the basis of thetheory of stochastic functions.By 1926, Slutsky’s life in Kiev became very complicated. He did not master Ukrainian,<strong>and</strong> a compulsory dem<strong>and</strong> of the time, that all the lectures be read in that language, made histeaching at Kiev higher academic institutions impossible. After hesitating for a long time,<strong>and</strong> being invited by the Central Statistical Directorate, he decided to move to Moscow.However, soon upon his arrival there, he was attracted by some scientific investigations (thestudy of cycles in the economy of capitalist countries) made at the Conjuncture Institute ofthe Ministry of Finance. E.E. became an active participant of this research, <strong>and</strong>, as usual,surrendered himself to it with all his passion. Here also, a great creative success lay ahead forhim. In March of that year he wrote to his wife:I am head over heels in the new work, am carried away by it. I am almostdefinitively sure about being lucky to arrive at a rather considerablefinding, to discover the secret of how are wavy oscillations originating by asource that, as it seems, had not been until now even suspected. Waves,known in physics, are engendered by forces of elasticity <strong>and</strong> rotatorymovements, but this does not yet explain those wavy movements that areobserved in social phenomena. I obtained waves by issuing from r<strong>and</strong>omoscillations independent one from another <strong>and</strong> having no periodicitieswhen combining them in some definite way.The study of pseudo-periodic waves originating in series, whose terms are correlativelyconnected with each other, led Slutsky to a new important subject, to the errors of thecoefficients of correlation between series of that type. In both his investigations, he appliedthe “method of models”, of artificially reproducing series similar to those actually observedbut formed in accord with some plan <strong>and</strong> therefore possessing a definite origin.The five years from 1924 to 1928, in spite of all the troubles, anxieties <strong>and</strong> prolongedhousing inconveniences caused by his move to Moscow, became a most fruitful period inSlutsky’s life. During that time, he achieved three considerable aims: he developed the theoryof stochastic limit (<strong>and</strong> asymptote); discovered pseudo-periodic waves; <strong>and</strong> investigated theerrors of the coefficient of correlation between series consisting of terms connected with eachother.In 1928, E.E. participated at the Congress of Mathematicians in Bologna. The tripprovided great moral satisfaction <strong>and</strong> was a gr<strong>and</strong> reward deserved by sleepless nights <strong>and</strong>creative enthusiasm. His report on stochastic asymptotes <strong>and</strong> limits attracted everyone. Aconsiderable debate flared up at the Congress between E.E. <strong>and</strong> the eminent Italianmathematician Cantelli concerning the priority to the strong law of large numbers. Slutsky[16] had stated that it was due to Borel but Cantelli considered himself its author.Castelnuovo, the famous theoretician of probability, <strong>and</strong> other Italian mathematicians ralliedtogether with Cantelli against Slutsky, declared that Borel’s book, to which E.E. had referredto, lacked anything of the sort attributed to him by the Russian mathematician, <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>edan immediate explanation from him. E.E. had to repulse numerous attacks launched by theItalians <strong>and</strong> to prove his case.The point was that Slutsky, having been restricted by the narrow boundaries of a paperpublished in the C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris, had not expressed himself quite precisely. He indicatedthat Borel was the first to consider the problem <strong>and</strong> that Cantelli, Khinchin, Steinhaus <strong>and</strong> hehimself studied it later on. However, he should have singled out Cantelli <strong>and</strong> stressed his
scientific merit. Borel was indeed the first to consider the strong law, but he did it only inpassing <strong>and</strong> connected it with another issue in which he was interested much more.Apparently for this reason Borel had not noticed the entire meaning <strong>and</strong> importance of thatlaw, whereas Cantelli was the first to grasp all that <strong>and</strong> developed the issue, <strong>and</strong> his was themain merit of establishing the strong law of large numbers. E.E. was nevertheless able towin. Underst<strong>and</strong>ably, he did not at all wish to make use of his victory for offending Cantelli.He appreciated the Italian mathematician; here is a passage from his letter to his wife(Bologna, 6 September 1928) 9 :[He is] not a bad man at all, very knowledgeable, wonderfully acquainted with Chebyshev,trying to learn everything possible about the Russian school (only one thing I cannot forgive,that he does not esteem Chuprov). In truth, he has brought fame to the Russian name in Italy,because he doesn’t steal but honestly says: that is from there, that is Russian, <strong>and</strong> that isRussian … Clearly one must let him keep his pride.After a prolonged discussion of the aroused discord with Cantelli himself, <strong>and</strong> a thoroughcheck of the primary sources, E.E. submitted an explanation to the Congress, agreedbeforeh<strong>and</strong> with Cantelli. The explanation confirmed his rightness but at the same time hadnot hurted Cantelli’s self-respect. After it was read out, Cantelli, in a short speech, largelyconcurred with E.E. This episode vividly characterizes Slutsky, – his thorough examinationof the problems under investigation, an attentive <strong>and</strong> deep study of other authors, <strong>and</strong> acordial <strong>and</strong> tactful attitude to fellow-scientists. He was therefore able not only to win hisdebate with Cantelli, but to convince his opponent as well.In 1930, the Conjuncture Institute ceased to exist, the Central Statistical Directorate wasfundamentally reorganized, <strong>and</strong> Slutsky passed over to institutions connected withgeophysics <strong>and</strong> meteorology where he hoped to apply his discoveries in the field of pseudoperiodicwaves. However, he did not find conditions conducive to the necessary several yearsof theoretical investigations at the Central Institute for Experimental Hydrology <strong>and</strong>Meteorology. [These lines smack of considerable sadness but they do not at all mean thatSlutsky surrendered.] In an essay [27] he listed his accomplished <strong>and</strong> intended worksimportant for geophysics. He also explicated his related findings touching on the problem ofperiodicity, <strong>and</strong> indicated his investigation of periodograms, partly prepared for publication[26] Slutsky then listed his notes in the C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris [16; 18; 20 – 23] where hedeveloped his notions as published in his previous main work of 1925 [13].To the beginning of the 1930s belong Slutsky’s investigations on the probable errors ofmeans, mean square deviations <strong>and</strong> coefficients of correlation calculated for interconnectedstationary series. He linked those magnitudes with the coefficients of the expansion of anempirical series into a sum of (Fourier) series of trigonometrical functions <strong>and</strong> thus openedup the way of applying those probable errors in practice.Slutsky himself summarized his latest works in his report at the First All-Union Congressof Mathematicians in 1929 but only published (in a supplemented way) seven year later [30].Owing to the great difficulties of calculation dem<strong>and</strong>ed by direct investigations of theinterconnected series, Slutsky developed methods able to serve as an ersatz of sorts <strong>and</strong>called by a generic name “statistical experiment”. Specifically, when we desire to check theexistence of a connection between two such series, we intentionally compare them in such away which prevents a real connection; after repeating such certainly r<strong>and</strong>om comparisonsmany times, we determine how often parallelisms have appeared in the sequences of theterms of both series. They, the parallelisms, create an external similarity of connection notworse than the coincidences observed by a comparison of the initial series. Slutsky developedmany versions of that method <strong>and</strong> applied it to many real geophysical investigations of wavyoscillating series.
- Page 3:
of All Countries and to the Entire
- Page 6 and 7:
(Coll. Works), vol. 4. N.p., 1964,
- Page 8 and 9:
individuals of the third class, the
- Page 10:
From the theoretical point of view
- Page 13 and 14:
Second case: Each crossing can repr
- Page 15 and 16:
On the other hand, for four classes
- Page 17 and 18:
f i = i S + i , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, (
- Page 19 and 20:
f 1 = C 1 P(f 1 ; …; f n+1 ), C 1
- Page 21 and 22:
ut in this case f = 2 , f 1 = 2 ,
- Page 23 and 24:
I also note the essential differenc
- Page 25 and 26:
A 1 23n1 + 1 A 1 A 1 … A 11A 2 A
- Page 27 and 28:
coefficient of 2 in the right side
- Page 29 and 30:
h(A r h - c h A r 0 ) = - A r0we tr
- Page 31 and 32:
Notes1. Our formulas obviously pres
- Page 33 and 34:
Bernstein’s standpoint regarding
- Page 35 and 36:
Corollary 1.8. A true proposition c
- Page 37 and 38:
It is important to indicate that al
- Page 39 and 40:
ut for the simultaneous realization
- Page 41 and 42:
devoid of quadratic divisors and re
- Page 43 and 44:
propositions (B i and C j ) can be
- Page 45 and 46:
A ~ A 1 and B = B 1 , we will have
- Page 47 and 48:
included in a given totality as equ
- Page 49 and 50: For unconnected totalities we would
- Page 51 and 52: proposition given that a second one
- Page 53 and 54: On the other hand, let x be a parti
- Page 55 and 56: totality is perfect, but that the j
- Page 57 and 58: In this case, all the finite or inf
- Page 59 and 60: probabilities p 1 , p 2 , … respe
- Page 61 and 62: where x is determined by the inequa
- Page 63 and 64: totality of the second type (§3.1.
- Page 65 and 66: x = /2 + /(23) + … + /(23… p n
- Page 67 and 68: that the fall of a given die on any
- Page 69 and 70: infinitely many digits only dependi
- Page 71 and 72: 10. (§2.1.5). Such two proposition
- Page 73 and 74: F(x + h) - F(x) = Mh, therefore F(x
- Page 75 and 76: “confidence” probability is bas
- Page 77 and 78: x1+ Lp n (x) x1− Lx1+ Lf(t)dt < x
- Page 79 and 80: |(x 1 ; t 0 ; t 1 ) - 1 t0tf(t)dt|
- Page 81 and 82: 5. The distribution ofξ , the arit
- Page 83 and 84: P(x 1i < x) = F(x; a i ) = C(a i )
- Page 85 and 86: egards his promises. Markov shows t
- Page 87 and 88: other solely and equally possible i
- Page 89 and 90: notion of probability and of its re
- Page 91 and 92: However, already in the beginning o
- Page 93 and 94: the revolution. My main findings we
- Page 95 and 96: Nevertheless, Slutsky is not suffic
- Page 97 and 98: path that would completely answer h
- Page 99: on political economy as well as wit
- Page 103 and 104: [3] Already in Kiev Slutsky had bee
- Page 105 and 106: different foundation. The difficult
- Page 107 and 108: 5. On the criterion of goodness of
- Page 109 and 110: --- (1999, in Russian), Slutsky: co
- Page 111 and 112: Here also, the author considers the
- Page 113 and 114: second, it is not based on assumpti
- Page 115 and 116: experimentation and connected with
- Page 117 and 118: Russian, and especially of the Sovi
- Page 119 and 120: station in England. This book, as h
- Page 121 and 122: Uspekhi Matematich. Nauk, vol. 10,
- Page 123 and 124: variety and detachment of those lat
- Page 125 and 126: 46. On the distribution of the regr
- Page 127 and 128: 119. On the Markov method of establ
- Page 129 and 130: No lesser difficulties than those e
- Page 131 and 132: Separate spheres of work considerab
- Page 133 and 134: 10. Anderson, O. Letters to Karl Pe
- Page 135 and 136: Hier sind, im Allgemeinen, ganz ana
- Page 137 and 138: Jedenfalls, glaube ich erwiesen zu
- Page 139 and 140: werde ich das ganze Material in kur
- Page 141 and 142: considered as the limiting case of
- Page 143 and 144: and, inversely,] = m ...1 2 N[ ch h
- Page 145 and 146: µ 2 2 = m 2 2 - 2m 2 m 1 2 + m 1 4
- Page 147 and 148: (x k - x k+1 ) … (x k - x +) = E(
- Page 149 and 150: the thus obtained relations as pert
- Page 151 and 152:
[1/S(S - 1)(S - 2)][(Si = 1Sx i ) 3
- Page 153 and 154:
( N −1)((S − N )(2NS− 3S− 3
- Page 155 and 156:
µ 5 + 2µ 2 µ 3 = U [S/S] 5 + 2U
- Page 157 and 158:
case, the same property is true wit
- Page 159 and 160:
It follows that the question about
- Page 161 and 162:
then expressed my doubts). And Gned
- Page 163 and 164:
For Problem 1, formula (7) shows th
- Page 165 and 166:
Let us calculate now, by means of f
- Page 167 and 168:
ϕ′1(x)1E(a|x 1 ; x 2 ; …; x n
- Page 169 and 170:
Theorem 3. If the prior density 3
- Page 171 and 172:
P( ≤ ≤ |, 1 , 2 , …, s )
- Page 173 and 174:
6. A Sensible Choice of Confidence
- Page 175 and 176:
0 = A 0 n, = B2, = B2, 0 = C 0 n
- Page 177 and 178:
Note also that (95),(96), (83),(85)
- Page 179 and 180:
Γ(n / 2)Γ [( n −1) / 2]k = (1/2
- Page 181 and 182:
f (x 1 , x 2 , …, x n ) = 1 if x
- Page 183 and 184:
and the probability of achieving no
- Page 185 and 186:
E = kEµ. (14)In many particular ca
- Page 187 and 188:
a = np, b = np 2 = a 2 /n, = a/nand
- Page 189 and 190:
with number (2k - 2), we commit an
- Page 191 and 192:
(67)which is suitable even without
- Page 193 and 194:
" = 1/[1 - e - ], = - ln [1 - (1/
- Page 195 and 196:
Such structures are entirely approp
- Page 197 and 198:
11. As a result of its historical d
- Page 199 and 200:
exaggeration towards a total denial