formulas for particular cases are in [27]. Later Slutsky examined the possibility of applyingthe 2 test <strong>and</strong> its distribution to connected series as well as of determining the requiredmagnitudes through the Fourier coefficients [25; 26].By issuing from his theory of connected series, <strong>and</strong> allowing for the course of r<strong>and</strong>omprocesses, Slutsky was able to provide a methodology of forecasting them, includingsufficiently long-term forecasting, with given boundaries of error [29].We ought to dwell especially on his method of models (of statistical experimentation) fordiscovering connections between phenomena. His idea was as follows. When studying manyproblems not yet completely solved by theory, it is possible to arrange a statistical“experiment” <strong>and</strong> thus to decide whether the statistical correspondence between phenomenais r<strong>and</strong>om or not. For example, when selecting a number of best <strong>and</strong> worst harvests in Russiafrom among the series collected by Mikhailovsky for 115 years, we can compare them withthe series of maximums <strong>and</strong> minimums of the number of sunspots for more than 300 years. Ifsuch comparisons are{if the correspondence is} only possible after shifting one of the serieswith respect to the other one, then, obviously, the coincidences will be r<strong>and</strong>om. However,since the sum of the squares of the discrepancies 14 is minimal when those series arecompared without such shifting, we may be sufficiently convinced in that the coincidencesare not r<strong>and</strong>om [28].I am unable to appraise Slutsky’s purely mathematical studies <strong>and</strong> am therefore quotingmost eminent Soviet mathematicians. Smirnov (1948, pp. 418 – 419), after mentioningSlutsky’s investigation [13], wrote:The next stage in the same direction was his works on the theory of continuous stochasticprocesses or r<strong>and</strong>om functions. One of Slutsky’s very important <strong>and</strong> effective findings herewas the proof that any r<strong>and</strong>om stochastically continuous function on a segment isstochastically equivalent to a measurable function of an order not higher than the secondBaire class. He also derived simple sufficient conditions for a stochastic equivalence of ar<strong>and</strong>om function <strong>and</strong> a continuous function on a segment, conditions for the differentiabilityof the latter, etc. These works undoubtedly occupy an honorable place among theinvestigations connected with the development of one of the most topical issues of thecontemporary theory of probability, that{issue or theory?}owes its origin to Slutsky’sscientific initiative.The next cycle of Slutsky’s works (1926 – 1927) was devoted to the examination of r<strong>and</strong>omstationary series, <strong>and</strong> they served as a point of departure for numerous <strong>and</strong> fruitfulinvestigations in this important field. Issuing from a simplest model of a series obtained by amultiple moving summation of an unconnected series, he got a class of stationary serieshaving pseudo-periodic properties imitating, over intervals of any large length, seriesobtained by superposing periodic functions. His finding was a sensation of sorts; itdem<strong>and</strong>ed a critical revision of the various attempts of statistical justification of periodicregularities in geophysics, meteorology, etc. It occurred that the hypothesis of superpositionof a finite number of regularly periodic oscillations was statistically undistinguishable fromthat of a r<strong>and</strong>om function with a very large zone of connectedness.His remarkable work on stationary processes with a discrete spectrum was a still deeperpenetration into the structure of r<strong>and</strong>om functions. In this case, the correlation function willbe almost periodical. Slutsky’s main result consisted here in that a r<strong>and</strong>om function was alsoalmost periodic, belonged to a certain type <strong>and</strong> was almost everywhere determined by itsFourier series.These surprisingly new <strong>and</strong> fearlessly intended investigations, far from exhausting a verydifficult <strong>and</strong> profound problem, nevertheless represent a prominent finding of our science.With respect to methodology <strong>and</strong> style, they closely adjoin the probability-theoretic conceptsof the Moscow school (Kolmogorov, Khinchin), that, historically speaking, originated on a
different foundation. The difficult to achieve combination of acuteness <strong>and</strong> wide theoreticalreasoning with a quite clearly perceived concrete direction of the final results, of the finalaim of the investigation, is Slutsky’s typical feature.Proving that Slutsky’s works were close to those of the Moscow school, Kolmogorov(1948, p. 70) stated:In 1934, Khinchin showed that a generalized technique of harmonic analysis wasapplicable to the most general stationary processes considered in Slutsky’s work […] Themodern theory of stationary processes, which most fully explains the essence of continuousphysical spectra, has indeed originated from Slutsky’s works, coupled with this result ofKhinchin.After E.E.’s interest in applications had shifted from economics to geophysics, it was quitenatural for him to pass from considering connected series of r<strong>and</strong>om variables to r<strong>and</strong>omfunctions of continuous time. The peculiar relations, that exist between the different kinds ofcontinuity, differentiability <strong>and</strong> integrability of such functions, make up a large area of themodern theory of probability whose construction is basically due to Slutsky [19; 20; 26; 30 –33] 15 . Among the difficult results obtained, which are also interesting from the purelymathematical viewpoint, two theorems should be especially noted. According to these, a‘stochastically continuous’ r<strong>and</strong>om function can be realized in the space of measurablefunctions [31; 33]; <strong>and</strong> a stationary r<strong>and</strong>om function with a discrete spectrum is almostperiodic in the Besikovitch sense with probability 1 [32].Kolmogorov then mentions the subtle mastery of Slutsky’s work on the tables ofincomplete - <strong>and</strong> B-functions that led him to the formulation of general problems. The issueconsisted in developing a method of their interpolation, simpler than those usually applied,but ensuring the calculation of the values of these functions for intermediate values of theirarguments with a stipulated precision. For E.E., this, apparently purely “technical”, problembecame a subject of an independent scientific investigation on which he had been soenthusiastically working in his last years. He was able, as I indicated above, to discover anew solution of calculating the incomplete -function, but that successful finish coincidedwith his tragic death.Notes1.{Chetverikov thus separated the theory of probability from pure mathematics.}2. {Still extant at the Vernadsky Library, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Fond 1, No.44850 (Chipman 2004, p. 355.}3.{A.I. Chuprov, father of the better known A.A. Chuprov.}4. He only held them in 1918, after the revolution, at Moscow University.5. Slutsky made the following marginal note on a reprint of Schults (1935): “This is asupplement to my work that began influencing{economists}only 20 years after having beenpublished”.6.{This explanation would have only been sufficient if written before 1926. Below,Chetverikov described Slutsky’s work in theoretical economics during 1926 – 1930 at theConjuncture Institute <strong>and</strong> then implicitly noted that in 1930 the situation in Soviet statisticshad drastically worsened. I (2004) stated that Slutsky had ab<strong>and</strong>oned economics largelybecause of the last-mentioned fact. On the fate of the Conjuncture Institute see also <strong>Sheynin</strong>(1996, pp. 29 – 30). Kondratiev, its Director, who was elbowed out of science, persecuted,<strong>and</strong> shot in 1938 (Ibidem), had studied cycles in the development of capitalist economies. Inat least one of his papers, he (1926) had acknowledged the assistance of Chetverikov <strong>and</strong>
- 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 and 100: on political economy as well as wit
- Page 101 and 102: scientific merit. Borel was indeed
- Page 103: [3] Already in Kiev Slutsky had bee
- 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