How to comprehend algebra history
When I studied at Moscow State University at the history department at the department of the ancient world, I was always amazed at the lack of completeness of the picture in the documents, on the basis of which historians restore the picture of what was happening. And if so, where is the guarantee that the whole story is not the fruit of the imagination of my colleagues?
The reasons for the lack of confirmation of certain historical facts are quite commonplace: in two thousand years, many documents have been destroyed. Some - during civil wars and proscriptions, in fires of fires, others, written on parchment, were used by monks as writing material for their chronicles (the old text was first cleaned, and then new was written on top of it), others were simply destroyed under “plausible” pretexts. ..
For several hundred years, no new facts about what happened in antiquity, say in the Gracchi era, have appeared, but historians based on the same well-known facts set forth the events of antiquity, each in its own way. For example, T. Mommzen believes that the Gracchi, especially the youngest, started reforms for the sake of the czar. E. Meyer considers Gracchus revolutionaries (albeit forced). R.Yu. Whipper is sure that the Gracchus were reformers. M.I. Rostovtsev considers them utopian, striving to restore democracy in Rome. S.L. Utchenko thinks it was a revolutionary uprising against the unwritten Roman constitution, the proclamation of the sovereign rights of the people, etc.
In essence, each of the researchers puts forward and substantiates, on the basis of the same factual data, a version that he personally thinks is the most likely.
But probability has a measure - a number from 0 to 1, where extreme values mean the following: an event having a probability of zero will never occur, having a probability of one will always occur, other events whose probability lies in the interval from 0 to 1 can occur , it does not occur, depending on the probability. It is also known that, all other things being equal, an event that has a greater probability appears more often than an event that has a lower probability. All this is very well studied in the classical courses of probability theory, in which Russian and Soviet mathematicians made a great contribution (AN Kolmogorov, BV Gnedenko, and others).
In my opinion, there is a real opportunity to quantify the probability of the implementation of a particular version put forward by historians, and, thus, reject the improbable and give preference to the most plausible version.
There is a method that I call the “probability of truth” and which is an implementation of the method of solving “incorrectly posed problems”, widely used in mathematics, geophysics, applied physics, etc.
By the way, analyst S. Kurginyan uses it to analyze the current situation in the world.
The essence of this method as applied to the study of historical events is as follows.
1. The historian puts himself in the place of a historical character and models the actions that should result in the realization of the hypothesis that he (the historian) puts forward.
2. It is checked whether actions resulting from the simulation were observed in historical reality, or in other words - “brainstorming”
3. If such actions were not observed, then the version is not true and does not have the right to exist. If observed, then go to paragraph 4.
4. It is necessary to assess the probability that the actions observed in reality did not occur spontaneously by themselves, for example, a meteorite fell and killed the main character. Here the historian must be a good specialist in the period under study in order to evaluate expertly the probability of an accidental spontaneous occurrence of an event.
5. If a chain of events should have happened to implement a version of what happened, then it is necessary to evaluate the probability of each event occurring as random.
6. The probability of the version proposed by the historian (hypothesis) will be the opposite of the probability of a random occurrence of a chain of events, i.e. unit minus the resulting probability.
In this case, the historian must choose, firstly, only equivalent events, and secondly, only those that “work” on the version in question. Objectively, we must strive to reduce the chain of events, because the very presence of a long chain indicates the non-random nature of the incident.
To illustrate the application of the method that I propose, we consider from this angle the events preceding the death of I.V. Stalin.
There are still disputes; Stalin himself died or was helped. A. Wasserman and Yu. Zhukov, technically allowing such an opportunity, believe that Stalin died himself. Y. Mukhin and N. Starikov argue that the leader was poisoned, etc. Versions are numbers. Everything is complicated by the fact that, having become the first secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, the “Stakhanovite terror” N.S. Khrushchev wagons destroyed compromising documents. And since there are no documents, it is possible to fence various versions. In a word, we have an “incorrectly posed problem” and try to solve it using the proposed method.
At the outset, let us assess whether I.V. Stalin die himself. Think about it. Stalin 1879 year of birth. The Great Patriotic War began when he was 62 of the year (in the USSR, men retired in 60 years). In essence, the pensioner bore four years of war on his shoulders due to colossal tension.
In 1953, Mr. Stalin was already 73 of the year, he was often sick, there are half a year breaks in the leader’s visiting journal. At the nineteenth congress in 1952, he asked to be dismissed from his post as secretary of the Central Committee, but the congress was against. Could I.V. Stalin in 1953 d. Die himself? Full However, at the XIX Congress of the CPSU, he made very business proposals, and on his initiative at the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East in February 1953 proposed a system of settlements in national currency, which fundamentally undermined the Bretton Woods agreement.
Let's slightly simplify the task and set it this way: was there a conspiracy against Stalin? We will act on the proposed algorithm.
So. Were there forces willing to eliminate Stalin? Of course they were, and this is well known. On the one hand, the Anglo-Saxons, who were hindered by Stalin by not accepting the Marshall plan, introduced the gold ruble as an alternative to the dollar, did not support the Bretton Woods agreement, and even planted a mine under them, proposing a system of national settlements in the UN / ECADW . On the other hand, the former Trotskyists (the same Khrushchev) and other party nomenclature. How were the forces to act to eliminate Stalin?
An armed coup would not have happened: not a single military unit would support the conspirators, on the contrary would have torn to pieces, stuttering someone about the intention to harm the "leader of the peoples."
To kill Stalin as Paul I was killed is an option, but for this you need to have a guard who is totally devoted to the conspirators. Not a single platoon, so that there a platoon, offices in the Office of the Commandant of the Moscow Kremlin, flaming hatred of Stalin, could not be found. It remained the only means - to poison in the atmosphere of a friendly dinner or wait for an attack of something like a stroke, do not provide a heart attack with timely medical assistance. But it's still not easy.
It was necessary, first of all, to eliminate the environment, personally devoted to Stalin. Start with vs Abakumov, Minister of State Security of the USSR. During the Great Patriotic War, Abakumov headed the SMERSh counterintelligence, personally submitted to Stalin, as Supreme Commander, and was devoted to him. We should start with the MGB, because any conspiracy is a few conspirators, which means that the agents would immediately disclose it, especially since Abakumov had work experience. Then the report of the subordinate M.A. Abakumov was organized. Ryumin and, with the filing of G.M. Malenkova, 11 July 1951 was adopted by the Politburo on the unfavorable state of affairs in the MGB. And 12.07.1951, Mr. Abakumov, was already arrested and imprisoned in Lefortovo prison. From August 1951 to February 1952, Mr. Stalin is ill and treated in Sochi, he is not up to Abakumov: in 1951, he is in Moscow for only half a year - from January to July. There is a curious note in the visiting journal of Stalin’s office for 11.07.1951: “All members of the Politburo came to the office at one time and all (except Ignatieff) came out at the same time.” Atypical record. It seems that the members of the Politburo put Stalin in front of a fact: they decided that in the MGB it was unfavorable. And he had to agree with the majority.
Further. It is necessary to eliminate or defame the doctors of Glavlechupra in order to have an impact on them - this is how the “doctors' case” appears, contrived, scattered like LP. Beria began to investigate him carefully.
Next stage. The appointment of a person as the USSR Minister of State Security - this is how Ignatiev appears, who was previously the head of the department of party, trade union and Komsomol organs of the CPSU Central Committee. Professional experience, equivalent to what Abakumov had, was not absent, but he had his own, from the party nomenclature. This is evidenced by the fact that no one touched him either under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, or Andropov. And, moreover, the pensioner was buried in the prestigious nomenklatura Novodevichy cemetery. His last post is the first secretary of the Bashkir regional party committee. Do you know a lot of the first secretaries of provincial regional committees buried at Novodevichy?
Further. It was necessary to remove the chief of personal security N.S. Vlasik and secretary Stalin A.N. Poskrebysheva, which was done, etc. In a word, a chain of events occurred, which had to be organized if a certain force wanted to physically eliminate I.V. Stalin.
So, we found a chain of events that would have to be if a conspiracy existed.
Now let us estimate the probability that these events occurred by chance, spontaneously (in the manner of a drop of an icicle from the roof directly onto the head of a passerby).
Consider in chronological order.
1. Elimination of Minister Abakumov, personally devoted to Stalin (12.07.1951). The accusation is ridiculous - insufficient activity in the "Leningrad case". Was it? Or was it just a power struggle with a weakening Master? The probability that Abakumov was planted by chance (and not on purpose, preparing the ground for the destruction of Stalin), in my opinion, is extremely small and no more
P (Abakumova) = 0,1
2. The removal of the personal security chief of Stalin Vlasik (May 1952), who worked with Stalin for almost 25 years and practically became a member of the family. Only in February, who arrived in that year after treatment in Sochi, Stalin is put before the fact. Taking advantage of the fact that Vlasik loved to walk at the government bill, someone “accidentally” showed Stalin the bill for Vlasik's moves, with a resolution, that this all went to Stalin's moves. Stalin indignantly exclaimed: "Who ate the herring?" This is Stalin ate? .. "
Stalin had no Peers from Belshazzar, very little food was wasted, so Vlasik’s spending was clearly visible. Vlasik was immediately removed from the "protected object".
What is the probability that the account for the notorious herring was shown to Stalin by chance? In my opinion, not more than one-tenth, or even less. Moreover, if until March 1953 of Vlasik was interrogated every day, then since March he had ceased to interest anyone. so
P (Vlasik) = 0,1
3. The personal secretary of Stalin Poskrebyshev at the beginning of 1953 lost a secret document. Almost in 20 years of his work with the leader of this did not happen. How could this happen if all winter 1952-1953. Stalin does not leave Kuntsevo dacha? Losing a document in such conditions is almost impossible if someone does not help. For the blunder at the beginning of 1953, Mr. Poskrebyshev was removed from Stalin (after the death of the leader, as expected, a document was found). The probability that Poskrebyshev accidentally lost a document shortly before Stalin’s death, in my opinion, does not exceed 0,01.
P (Poskrebysheva) = 0,01
4. After Vlasik, a new personal security chief was appointed Kosykin (formerly the chieftain’s bodyguard), who suddenly 17 February 1953 dies. A young, healthy general who served as security chief from May 1952 to February 1953, i.e. less than a year, “accidentally” dies 10 days before Stalin’s death. Nowhere and never has any intelligence considered it an accident. This is an accident and can not be. The probability that Kosynkin died accidentally is no more than 0,1. Probability
R (kosynkina) = 0,1
5. Failure to help Stalin 2 March 1953. Stalin lies on the floor and nobody approaches him. Why aren't they afraid that when I.V. Stalin will come to his senses, all those who have not given help (in accordance with the job description) will not be happy? In my opinion, this is because the surrounding people, in particular Minister Ignatiev, who, after Kosynkin’s death, temporarily headed Stalin’s personal guard for 10 days, knew that the leader would never get up.
This looks especially contrasted in comparison with the episode told by one of the leaders of the guards N.P. Novikom. On Saturdays, Stalin went to a bathhouse built on the territory of a summer house (in which, by the way, the summer house’s guard was steaming, but, of course, not when Stalin visited it). Usually this procedure took an hour or an hour from Stalin. But one day he suddenly did not leave the bath at the appointed time. After 20 minutes, the guard reported to Novik, who was at that time at the dacha. After 35 minutes he called MGB Minister Ignatiev, who immediately informed Malenkov. There was a command to break the door in the bath (it was locked on the inside from the inside). After 46 minutes Novik with the crowbar and the bodyguard already ran to the bath. But the door opened, and a slightly sleepy Stalin came out on the threshold.
The likelihood that Stalin, who was lying on the dacha's floor, was not accidentally approached within two days, not more than 0,01.
But Vlasik “wouldn’t wait a day outside the doors, like the guards of 1 March 1953 of the year when Stalin“ wakes up ”... - said the daughter N.S. Vlasik Nadezhda Vlasik ("Moskovsky Komsomolets" from 07.05.2003 g.). This was the main reason for which they threw dirt and removed Vlasik.
The likelihood that Stalin, who was lying on the dacha's floor, was not accidentally approached within two days, not more than 0,01.
P (cottages) = 0,01
6. So, we have a chain of events: the consistent elimination of Abakumov, Vlasik, Poskrebyshev and Kosynkin, the failure to render aid to 2 in March of 1953.
If the chain of events is not due to each other, and all the events that took place then were random and independent, then and only then it can be said that the entire chain of events is random and has a probability equal to the product of the above events, i.e. the probability of chance and independence of the tragic events preceding March 2, 1953 is equal to
Qобщ = 0,1*0,1*0,01*0,1*0,01=10.
The probability of the opposite event, that the chain of events was dependent, i.e. conspiracy party equipment, nomenclature and external forces was equal to
P = 1-Q = 1-10-7,
those. practically unit.
Thus, by translating from mathematical to universal language, it can be considered proven that, with probability one, a conspiracy against the life of I.V. Stalin was still there.
In the future, when historians "check out" higher mathematics, there will be no set of textbooks, where each historian, based on the same facts, will present his version of what happened. And there will be a single history textbook in which all the versions of what happened, ranked by the probability of what happened, are obtained according to the conclusion of the expert community of historians. That is, it will be written that the version number 1, the proposed name, has the probability of such and such, the version number 2 has the probability of such and such, etc. In this case, the presentation of historical events will become objective, and then and only then history will become an exact science.