<p>This paper, in Russian, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Gricenko, S. A., Karatsuba, E. A., Korolyov, M. A., Rezvyakova, I. S.,
  Tolev, D. I., &amp; Changa, M. E. (2012). Scientific contributions of A. A.
  Karatsuba / Научные достижения Анатолия Алексеевича Карацубы.
  Современные проблемы математики, 16(0), 7-30.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>states the following (items 1—3).</p>

<ol>
<li>Karatsuba presented his algorithm at a seminar led by Kolmogorov. </li>
<li>Kolmogorov prepared an article that had two results of his students, Karatsuba and Ofman. One of the results was Karatsuba's algorithm, the other was an unrelated result of Ofman.</li>
<li>The article clearly attributed the results. It stated that the multiplication algorithm is due to Karatsuba and the other result is due to Ofman.  </li>
</ol>

<p><em>We can only guess why Kolmogorov did that. I am afraid that the only person who could answer the question why Kolmogorov published the paper without Karatsuba's permission or knowledge was Kolmogorov himself.</em>  Perhaps he thought that it was a good way to publish the results of his students. Note that the article correctly attributed all results. The article of Karatsuba and Ofman was published in the <em>Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences</em>; it is my understanding that it had to be submitted/presented by a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.</p>

<p>Here is the relevant quote from the paper of Gricenko et al (in Russian):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Этот результат был доложен Анатолием Карацубой на семинаре А. Н.
  Колмогорова в МГУ в 1960 г., после чего семинар был Колмогоровым
  закрыт. Первая статья с описанием этого метода [2] была подготовлена
  самим Колмогоровым. Там он представил два разных и не связанных друг с
  другом результата двух своих учеников, и хотя в статье Колмогоров
  четко отметил, что одна теорема (не связанная с быстрым умножени- ем)
  принадлежит Ю. Офману, а другая теорема (с первым в истории быстрым
  умножением) принадлежит А. Карацубе, эта публикация под именами двух
  авторов надолго сбила с толку читателей, которые полагали, что оба
  автора внесли вклад в создание быстрого умножения, и даже называли
  этот метод двумя именами.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>English translation:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This result was presented by Anatoly Karatsuba in A. N. Kolmogorov's seminar at the Moscow State University in 1960, after which the seminar was closed by Kolmogorov. The first article with the description of this algorithm [2] was prepared by Kolmogorov himself.  In it he presented two different results from his two students that were unrelated to each other, and although Kolmogorov clearly noted in the article that one theorem (unrelated to fast multiplication) belonged to Y. Ofman, and the other theorem (with the first fast multiplication algorithm in history) belonged to A. Karatsuba, this publication on behalf of the two authors for a long time confused readers, who supposed that both authors had stake in the invention of fast multiplication, and even referred to the algorithm using both names.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T09:04:23.110Z
Was it a situation where only some people were allowed to 'communicate' results to a journal, so Karatsuba (a student at the time) couldn't have done so ?
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T13:33:03.643Z
@SureshVenkat: That's a good point! The paper was published in the Proc. of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and I think that it had to be communicated by an Academy member. If that's the case, Karatsuba could not submit the paper himself.
Yury
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T14:57:08.760Z
helpful but feel not a full answer. _nevertheless Karatsuba states he was not directly informed by Kolmogorov & did not find out until post publication, apparently upon seeing the published article_ and an obvious still-unanswered aspect is _why did Kolmogorov not simply ask/inform Karatsuba/Ofman prior to publication_
vzn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T15:00:31.293Z
@vzn: Yes, that is very strange. But we can only speculate why Kolmogorov did that — he was the only person who could answer your question.
Yury
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-17T04:11:55.043Z
It's hard to imagine today what the culture was like then, but I can imagine Kolmogorov publishing it (as only he could per @Yury) and thinking he did the students a favor and didn't need to inform them ahead of time. Or maybe he wrote it up and was planning to tell them and forgot.
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-17T11:32:06.227Z
Perhaps Kolmogorov simply wanted to do a nice surprise to Karatsuba ... a kind of "academic gift" :-)
Marzio De Biasi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T06:42:53.810Z
2015-06-09T11:08:51.280Z
2015-06-09T11:08:51.280Z
Yury
<p>It is probably cultural.  Karatsuba's discovery took place only 7 years after the death of Stalin.  I do not believe it was an environment in which subjects questioned authority, and authority did not ask permission from subjects.  As a professor and member of NAUK, Kolmogorov was definitely authority.   No complaints about Kolmogorov, he left us a lot of good stuff!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-28T18:14:04.443Z
This answer is wrong as Stalin died 1953, the discovery by Karatsuba was in 1960 and it was published 1962. By Karatsuba's own memorial, he learned of the paper only having got proofs for publication.
Oleg Lobachev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-13T21:48:18.377Z
2015-11-13T21:48:18.377Z
richard1941
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karatsuba_algorithm">Karatsuba's algorithm</a> for fast multiplication was first published in A. Karatsuba and Yu. Ofman (1962), "Multiplication of Many-Digital Numbers by Automatic Computers", <em>Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences</em> 145: 293–294.</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.cs.ru/personal/karatsuba/divcen.pdf">Karatsuba (1995, "The complexity of computations", <em>Proc. Steklov Institute
of Mathematics</em> 211: 169–183)</a>, this paper was actually written by Kolmogorov (and possibly Ofman) without Karatsuba's knowledge. By modern standards this seems a strange and grave breach of ethics.</p>

<p>Why would Kolmogorov have done this? What did he gain?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-15T22:46:14.347Z
I think claiming "false pretences" is a little inflammatory, since the paper is credited to Karatsuba. It's still reasonable to ask the question though, since it's a little unusual.
Suresh Venkat
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-15T23:27:49.943Z
?!? cf p173 2nd ref & Karatsuba calls it "the unusual nature of this publication" wrt 1st ref. in other words he asserts the 1st paper was really written by Kolmogorov & credited to Ofman & himself, Karatsuba. maybe this has something to do with Russian publications conventions or an eccentricity of Kolmogorov? immed related question, what did Ofman have to do with the paper... usually it is opposite case where ppl take work that is done by others and published under their own name to "take credit"; this appears to be an opposite case of "giving credit" in a highly unusual circumstance....
vzn
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-16T08:06:59.760Z
@SureshVenkat: true, sorry about that. I've removed the phrase.
Max
<ho.history-overview>
Why did Kolmogorov publish Karatsuba's algorithm?
Max
# Why did Kolmogorov publish Karatsuba's algorithm?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-15)

[Karatsuba's algorithm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karatsuba_algorithm) for fast multiplication was first published in A. Karatsuba and Yu. Ofman (1962), "Multiplication of Many-Digital Numbers by Automatic Computers", *Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences* 145: 293–294.

According to [Karatsuba (1995, "The complexity of computations", *Proc. Steklov Institute
of Mathematics* 211: 169–183)](http://www.cs.ru/personal/karatsuba/divcen.pdf), this paper was actually written by Kolmogorov (and possibly Ofman) without Karatsuba's knowledge. By modern standards this seems a strange and grave breach of ethics.

Why would Kolmogorov have done this? What did he gain?

**Tags:** ho.history-overview

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think claiming "false pretences" is a little inflammatory, since the paper is credited to Karatsuba. It's still reasonable to ask the question though, since it's a little unusual.  
> **username_2**: ?!? cf p173 2nd ref & Karatsuba calls it "the unusual nature of this publication" wrt 1st ref. in other words he asserts the 1st paper was really written by Kolmogorov & credited to Ofman & himself, Karatsuba. maybe this has something to do with Russian publications conventions or an eccentricity of Kolmogorov? immed related question, what did Ofman have to do with the paper... usually it is opposite case where ppl take work that is done by others and published under their own name to "take credit"; this appears to be an opposite case of "giving credit" in a highly unusual circumstance....  
> **username_0**: @SureshVenkat: true, sorry about that. I've removed the phrase.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-03-16. Score: 36

This paper, in Russian,

> Gricenko, S. A., Karatsuba, E. A., Korolyov, M. A., Rezvyakova, I. S.,
> Tolev, D. I., & Changa, M. E. (2012). Scientific contributions of A. A.
> Karatsuba / Научные достижения Анатолия Алексеевича Карацубы.
> Современные проблемы математики, 16(0), 7-30.

states the following (items 1—3).

1. Karatsuba presented his algorithm at a seminar led by Kolmogorov.
2. Kolmogorov prepared an article that had two results of his students, Karatsuba and Ofman. One of the results was Karatsuba's algorithm, the other was an unrelated result of Ofman.
3. The article clearly attributed the results. It stated that the multiplication algorithm is due to Karatsuba and the other result is due to Ofman.

*We can only guess why Kolmogorov did that. I am afraid that the only person who could answer the question why Kolmogorov published the paper without Karatsuba's permission or knowledge was Kolmogorov himself.* Perhaps he thought that it was a good way to publish the results of his students. Note that the article correctly attributed all results. The article of Karatsuba and Ofman was published in the *Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences*; it is my understanding that it had to be submitted/presented by a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Here is the relevant quote from the paper of Gricenko et al (in Russian):

> Этот результат был доложен Анатолием Карацубой на семинаре А. Н.
> Колмогорова в МГУ в 1960 г., после чего семинар был Колмогоровым
> закрыт. Первая статья с описанием этого метода [2] была подготовлена
> самим Колмогоровым. Там он представил два разных и не связанных друг с
> другом результата двух своих учеников, и хотя в статье Колмогоров
> четко отметил, что одна теорема (не связанная с быстрым умножени- ем)
> принадлежит Ю. Офману, а другая теорема (с первым в истории быстрым
> умножением) принадлежит А. Карацубе, эта публикация под именами двух
> авторов надолго сбила с толку читателей, которые полагали, что оба
> автора внесли вклад в создание быстрого умножения, и даже называли
> этот метод двумя именами.

English translation:

> This result was presented by Anatoly Karatsuba in A. N. Kolmogorov's seminar at the Moscow State University in 1960, after which the seminar was closed by Kolmogorov. The first article with the description of this algorithm [2] was prepared by Kolmogorov himself. In it he presented two different results from his two students that were unrelated to each other, and although Kolmogorov clearly noted in the article that one theorem (unrelated to fast multiplication) belonged to Y. Ofman, and the other theorem (with the first fast multiplication algorithm in history) belonged to A. Karatsuba, this publication on behalf of the two authors for a long time confused readers, who supposed that both authors had stake in the invention of fast multiplication, and even referred to the algorithm using both names.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Was it a situation where only some people were allowed to 'communicate' results to a journal, so Karatsuba (a student at the time) couldn't have done so ?  
> **username_3**: @SureshVenkat: That's a good point! The paper was published in the Proc. of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and I think that it had to be communicated by an Academy member. If that's the case, Karatsuba could not submit the paper himself.  
> **username_2**: helpful but feel not a full answer. _nevertheless Karatsuba states he was not directly informed by Kolmogorov & did not find out until post publication, apparently upon seeing the published article_ and an obvious still-unanswered aspect is _why did Kolmogorov not simply ask/inform Karatsuba/Ofman prior to publication_  
> **username_3**: @username_2: Yes, that is very strange. But we can only speculate why Kolmogorov did that — he was the only person who could answer your question.  
> **username_1**: It's hard to imagine today what the culture was like then, but I can imagine Kolmogorov publishing it (as only he could per @username_3) and thinking he did the students a favor and didn't need to inform them ahead of time. Or maybe he wrote it up and was planning to tell them and forgot.  
> **username_4**: Perhaps Kolmogorov simply wanted to do a nice surprise to Karatsuba ... a kind of "academic gift" :-)  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2015-11-13. Score: -3

It is probably cultural. Karatsuba's discovery took place only 7 years after the death of Stalin. I do not believe it was an environment in which subjects questioned authority, and authority did not ask permission from subjects. As a professor and member of NAUK, Kolmogorov was definitely authority. No complaints about Kolmogorov, he left us a lot of good stuff!

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: This answer is wrong as Stalin died 1953, the discovery by Karatsuba was in 1960 and it was published 1962. By Karatsuba's own memorial, he learned of the paper only having got proofs for publication.  

---

