Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1403.3001

"The Gibbon of Math History". Who Invented the St. Petersburg Paradox? Khinchin's resolution

Valerii Salov
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A sentence from Carl Boyer's A History of Mathematics can be interpreted so that the full brothers Nicolaus II (02/06/1695 - 07/31/1726) and Daniel Bernoulli (02/08/1700 - 03/17/1782) are the authors of the St. Petersburg paradox. The paradox was formulated by their cousin Nicolaus I Bernoulli (10/21/1687 - 11/29/1759). The author did not find evidences that Nicolaus II and Daniel Bernoulli discussed the paradox. The key articles on the topic and its history from Karl Menger and Paul Samuelson, and recent papers presenting the time resolution miss Alexandr Khinchin's resolution of the paradox in his paper "On Petersburg game." Matematicheskii sbornik, Volume 32, No 2, 1925, pp. 330 - 341. The C++ program khinchin.cpp simulates conditions of two Khinchin's theorems and confirms his results providing concrete empirical dependencies of the frequencies corresponding to geometric and arithmetic mean payments on the number of Petersburg games.

Explore related subjects

math.HO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Valerii Salov. 2014-03-11. "The Gibbon of Math History". Who Invented the St. Petersburg Paradox? Khinchin's resolution. https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3001

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

On the Reconstruction of SAS from Other Triangle Congruence Criteria, Part II: Eliminating the Pons Asinorum

In the first part of this work we showed that, within a Hilbert plane deprived of the Side-Angle-Side axiom, the Side-Angle-Angle criterion, together with a ray correspondence principle [\textbf{RCT}], the existence of angle bisectors [\textbf{AB}], the congruence of supplements of congruent angles [\textbf{SA}], and the Pons Asinorum [\textbf{PA}], suffices to reconstruct SAS. We left open the question of whether [\textbf{PA}] is genuinely required alongside the other three principles, noting only a qualitative asymmetry in the nature of the principles involved. In this second part we answer this question: we show that \begin{equation*} \textrm{SAA},\ [\textbf{RCT}],\ [\textbf{AB}] \;\vdash\; [\textbf{PA}], \end{equation*} so that [\textbf{PA}] is redundant among the hypotheses of our main theorem, which improves to \begin{equation*} \textrm{SAA},\ [\textbf{RCT}],\ [\textbf{AB}],\ [\textbf{SA}] \;\vdash\; \textrm{SAS}. \end{equation*} The proof adapts an argument recently given by Donnelly, who reconstructs SAS from SAA together with an angle addition axiom and the existence of angle bisectors.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Chebyshev and garment cutting. Debunking some myths

In {\tt 1878}, Pafnuty Chebyshev presented to the {\it Association fran\c caise pour l'avan\-cement des sciences} {\it [French Association for the Advancement of the Sciences]} an article \cite{Chebyshev1878} dealing with garment cutting. According to Chebyshev himself, his interest was sparked by a lecture given by Édouard Lucas that he had attended in {\tt 1876} \cite{Lucas1876}. There is a second story on the origin of Chebyshev's interest in garment cutting according to which in the 1850s, being short of money, Chebyshev got himself a job as a consultant to a clothing factory. At the time of the Crimean War (1853-1856), there was a great demand for uniforms. Chebyshev was allegedly asked to optimize the use of fabric, and it was there that his interest in garment cutting was born. This second story appears to have its origin in a post by Clive J. Grant to MacTutor in 1996 \cite{Grant1996}. However, this contribution contains no references, and no other source of information that I have found offers any first-hand documentation to support this story. Our conclusion is that this second story is a fabrication, invented out of whole cloth.

math.HO↗
arXiv2026

Mathematics Graduate Training in the Age of AI

Generative AI changes the conditions under which graduate mathematics is learned, assessed, written, and defended. The central claim of this paper is that mathematics graduate programs should respond to the moment by clarifying what graduate mathematics education is trying to teach and assess. In most ways, the goals of mathematics education have not changed. Rather, with changing tools it has become more essential than ever to make clear the goals of mathematical training. We use the term mathematical judgment to refer to the capacity to evaluate mathematics (e.g., claims, definitions, examples, proofs, analogies, computations, uses of tools, research directions) as mathematically sound, useful, well-posed, and appropriately justified. The recommendation is to center training on mathematical judgment, and we examine possible policies for graduate programs in Mathematics to this end.

math.HO↗