Martin Davis on Computability

Computational Logic and Mathematical

Foundations 1st Edition Eugenio G.
Omodeo
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/martin-davis-on-computability-computational-logic-an
d-mathematical-foundations-1st-edition-eugenio-g-omodeo/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Mathematical Foundations of Computational

Electromagnetism Franck Assous

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-foundations-of-
computational-electromagnetism-franck-assous/

The Foundations of Computability Theory 2nd Edition

Borut Robi■

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-foundations-of-
computability-theory-2nd-edition-borut-robic/

Mathematical Logic On Numbers Sets Structures and

Symmetry 1st Edition Roman Kossak

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-logic-on-numbers-
sets-structures-and-symmetry-1st-edition-roman-kossak/

My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles Dover

Recreational Math First Thus Used Edition Martin
Gardner

https://textbookfull.com/product/my-best-mathematical-and-logic-
puzzles-dover-recreational-math-first-thus-used-edition-martin-
gardner/
Labs on Chip: Principles, Design and Technology Eugenio
Iannone

https://textbookfull.com/product/labs-on-chip-principles-design-
and-technology-eugenio-iannone/

Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science 1st

Edition Satyanarayana

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-foundations-of-
computer-science-1st-edition-satyanarayana/

Computational Psychoanalysis and Formal Bi Logic

Frameworks 1st Edition Giuseppe Iurato

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-psychoanalysis-
and-formal-bi-logic-frameworks-1st-edition-giuseppe-iurato/

Notes on formal languages automata computability and

complexity Gallier J

https://textbookfull.com/product/notes-on-formal-languages-
automata-computability-and-complexity-gallier-j/

Mathematical Knowledge for Primary Teachers 5th Edition

Andrew Davis

https://textbookfull.com/product/mathematical-knowledge-for-
primary-teachers-5th-edition-andrew-davis/
Outstanding Contributions to Logic 10

Eugenio G. Omodeo
Alberto Policriti Editors

Martin Davis on
Computability,
Computational
Logic, and
Mathematical
Foundations
Outstanding Contributions to Logic

Volume 10

Editor-in-Chief
Sven Ove Hansson, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Editorial Board
Marcus Kracht, Universität Bielefeld
Lawrence Moss, Indiana University
Sonja Smets, Universiteit van Amsterdam
Heinrich Wansing, Ruhr-Universität Bochum
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10033
Eugenio G. Omodeo Alberto Policriti
•

Editors

Martin Davis
on Computability,
Computational Logic, and
Mathematical Foundations

123
Editors
Eugenio G. Omodeo Alberto Policriti
University of Trieste University of Udine
Trieste Udine
Italy Italy

ISSN 2211-2758 ISSN 2211-2766 (electronic)

Outstanding Contributions to Logic
ISBN 978-3-319-41841-4 ISBN 978-3-319-41842-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41842-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954526

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated
to the memory of
Hilary Putnam.
Foreword

I am honored to write a brief foreword to this volume dedicated to the many logical
issues on which Martin has shed light during his illustrious career. I first met Martin
at the Cornell 1957 Summer Institute in Symbolic Logic. This meeting proved very
significant to the mathematical lives of many people who met there, including both
of us: for him, Hilary Putnam and for me, J. Barkley Rosser. This meeting pre-
cipitated the formation of an international research community in mathematical
logic whose influence on logic and computer science is strong even after sixty
years. What I learned then about Martin was the universality of his interests, his
utter concentration on fundamental problems, and his insatiable urge to learn new
things. These are the signal marks of his long career. Some years ago, a university
in a Western state with no history in any area he represents and, without warning,
offered him a prestigious post. He called me and asked why. I told him they wanted
an icon. He said he did not want to be an icon and promptly turned it down. But he
is an icon, whether he likes it or not!

Ithaca, New York Anil Nerode

April 2016

vii
Preface

It is reasonable to hope that the relationship between com-

putation and mathematical logic will be as fruitful in the next
century as that between analysis and physics in the last. The
development of this concern demands a concern for both
applications and mathematical elegance.

(John McCarthy 1963)

The dozen students or so gathered in the lovely Italian town of Perugia were
amazed when Martin David Davis first showed up, wearing heavy shoes and short
pants seemingly more apt for trekking than for teaching a graduate level course. His
accent from the Bronx, together with a little hole, may be produced by the ember of
a cigarette, over one shoulder of his red T-shirt, seized the attention of the class. His
hair à la Queen of Sheba further increased the mismatch between Martin as a
person and the stereotype unavoidably associated with his reputation as a distin-
guished scholar.
Admiration quickly prevailed over astonishment when Martin began his expo-
sition of computability. For the entire one-month duration of his course, concepts
remained clear and accessible. At times, when confronted with some odd question
coming from his audience, Martin turned his hands upward and disarmingly said
“I cannot understand”; far more often, he answered with extreme precision. He
indulged in vivid images, such as “brand-new variable” or “crystal-clear proof,” but
his repertoire of idiomatic expressions also included “gory detail,” when techni-
calities were inescapable.
Through mathematics, the class felt, Martin was also addressing issues of
philosophical relevance and depth. On one memorable occasion, the philosophical
side of his scientific inquiry showed through a lesson boldly offered in Italian. Forty
years have elapsed since, and alas, the tape recording of that lesson, dealing with
Turing machines and universality, has by now faded away.
Once Martin was invited to an assembly of all students participating in the
Perugia summer school. Unhesitatingly, he joined the crowd, coming hand in hand

ix
x Preface

with his wife Virginia; he even took the floor at some point, rational and quiet, not
in the least dismayed by the excited, somehow “revolutionary,” atmosphere of the
event.
One of the editors of this volume dedicated to Martin was a student in his
computability course in Perugia, and this explains why such an anecdotal episode
has been recounted here. Many similar fascinating stories could certainly be
reported by many: Over the years, Martin lectured in several countries (to cite a
few: Japan, India, England, Russia, and Mexico—see Fig. 1), and they have—along

Fig. 1 Poster announcing Martin’s first lecture in Mexico

Preface xi

with his publications—exerted a wide influence. This book will testify to this
influence by focusing on scientific achievements in which Martin was involved in
the first person and on further achievements, studies, and reflections in which work
and vision consonant with his have played a role. Our task has been to collect
testimonies of Martin’s contributions to computability, computational logic, and
mathematical foundations.
Three chapters are devoted to a problem that Martin said he found “irresistibly
seductive” when still an undergraduate (Fig. 2) and which progressively became his
“lifelong obsession”: Hilbert’s tenth problem—H10 for short. One of the three
contains a narrative essay by the Mexican mathematician Dr. Laura Elena Morales
Guerrero, telling us how a negative solution to H10 came to light through the joint
effort of four protagonists (one being Martin, of course). There are two epic events
in that story: One is when Julia Bowman Robinson eliminates “a serious blemish”
from a proof by Martin and Hilary Putnam by showing how to avoid a hypothesis
that was unproved at the time; the other is when, in 1970, notes of a talk given in
Novosibirsk reach Martin in New York. Laura Elena reports to the reader the key
equations in those notes based on Yuri Matiysevich’s decisive work, which Martin
echoed a few months later by his own use of these newly developed methods to
obtain an alternative system of equations leading to the same result. See Fig. 3.

Fig. 2 Are all recursively enumerable sets Diophantine? (From Martin’s Ph.D. thesis)
xii Preface

Fig. 3 In all of these equa-

tions, variables range over N.
Equations (I)–(X) with
parameters u; v; a have a
solution for a [ 1 if and only
if v ¼ yu ðaÞ, where X ¼
xu ðaÞ; Y ¼ yu ðaÞ is the
u þ 1st solution, over N, of
the Pell equation
X 2  ða2  1ÞY ¼ 1.
Equations (I)–(XV) with
parameters a, b, u have a
solution for b  1 if and only
if a ¼ bu

Another chapter on H10 is by Yuri V. Matiyasevich himself, the “clever young

Russian” whose appearance Martin had predicted and who, by producing a
Diophantine predicate of exponential growth, first obtained that negative solution.
Yuri explains how Julia Robinson, Martin Davis, and Hilary Putnam had—through
extraordinary insights—paved the way for his decisive mathematical contribution.
Far from being exhausted, the field of research triggered by H10 abounds today
with unanswered questions, some fairly old (e.g., does the equation of the report
shown in Fig. 4 admit finitely many solutions?), other quite contemporary, and in
fact, Yuri’s article, after disclosing a formidable landscape of open issues in front of
us, terminates with a conjecture raised by Martin in 2010.
A third related contribution is by Prof. Alexandra Shlapentokh, who enriches the
landscape with extensions of H10 to recursive rings. When referring his Tenth
Problem to integers, in 1900, Hilbert may have thought that he was posing the most
difficult among variants of the same problem with respect to other rings. Nowadays,
we know that H10 as originally posed is unsolvable, but we are in the difficult
position of not being able to draw any conclusion about the analog of this problem
for, say, the ring Q of rational numbers.
Martin has been a trailblazer of the field today known as “automated reasoning.”
The summer of 1954 sees him at work on a JOHNNIAC machine, implementing a
logical decision procedure for integer arithmetic. In the late 1950s, a seminal report
on computational methods in the propositional calculus arises from his collabora-
tion with Hilary Putnam, the brilliant philosopher with whom Martin enjoyed
Preface xiii

Fig. 4 A report on an intriguing equation

discussing “all day long about everything under the sun, including Hilbert’s tenth
problem.” The Davis–Putnam–Logemann–Loveland procedure, to date so basic in
the architecture of fast Boolean satisfiability solvers, was rooted in that study, and
Donald Loveland, who contributed to its pioneering implementation in the early
1960s, coauthors in this book, with Ashish Sabharwal and with Professor Bart
Selman, a paper reviewing historical developments and the state of the art of
propositional theorem provers.
It is slightly less known that in the early 1960s, the most-general unification
mechanism for first-order logic was available in the working implementation of
Martin’s linked conjunct proof procedure, a forerunner of decadelong efforts to
automatize reasoning in quantification theory. Unification has evolved, subse-
quently, into a well-established theory that proceeds hand in hand with the topic of
rewriting systems. This is why dedicating a paper on a new trend in this field to
xiv Preface

Martin seemed appropriate: Jörg Siekmann coauthors in this book, with Peter Szabó
and Michael Hoche, a survey on “essential unification.”
Udi Boker and Nachum Dershowitz, who dedicate an essay on “honest com-
putability” to Martin, contend that “a nefarious representation can turn . . . the
intractable into trivial,” whereas “demanding of an implementation that it also
generates its internal representations of the input from an abstract term description
of that input . . . obviates cheating on complexity problems by giving away the
answer in the representation.” This attitude is akin to considerations made in the
above-cited report by Davis and Putnam (1958) concerning propositional satisfia-
bility, e.g.: “Even if the system has hundreds or thousands of formulas, it can be put
into conjunctive normal form ‘piece by piece’, without any ‘multiplying out.’ This
is a feasible (if laborious) task even for hand computation   ”
The centennial of Frege’s Begriffsschrift, Martin reports, “fundamentally chan-
ged the direction of my work”: Being invited to place some contemporary trends in
a proper historical context, he finds “trying to trace the path from ideas and con-
cepts developed by logicians    to their embodiment in software and hardware   
endlessly fascinating.”
Martin actually cultivated, since long, a keen interest in the history and phi-
losophy of computing: The first edition of The Undecidable, his anthology of basic
papers on unsolvable problems and computable functions, is dated 1965. One of
Martin’s heroes is Alan Mathison Turing; he also devoutly edited the collected
works of Emil Leon Post, who had supervised his beginnings in logic at City
College. In a recent paper, Martin and Wilfried Sieg have discussed a conceptual
confluence between Post and Turing in 1936; in this book, Sieg coauthors with
Máté Szabó and Dawn McLaughin, a paper addressing the question: Did Post have
Turing’s Thesis?
Yiannis N. Moschovakis unravels the history of another crucial confluence of
ideas. Stephen C. Kleene, Emil Leon Post, and Andrzej Mostowski had raised
questions which would influence profoundly the development of the theory of
unsolvability when Martin, in the central part of his Ph.D. thesis, moved “on into
the transfinite!”, thus playing a very important role in defining natural extensions
of the arithmetical hierarchy. The author skillfully alternates notes about the his-
torical development of the subject with some carefully chosen technical details.
This makes for a paper which is really a pleasure to read.
Martin once called “attention to the relevance for the foundational problems in
quantum theory of some recent mathematical discoveries” arisen from logic. One
of the diverse contributions dedicated to Martin, by Andreas Blass and Yuri
Gurevich, aims at explaining certain sorts of anyons, “rather mysterious physical
phenomena” which may provide a basis for quantum computing, by means of
category theory.
Don Perlis’s contribution speculates on the concept of infinity and distinguishes
several modes of use of infinities in physics. In particular, quantum mechanics, he
observes, provides intriguing examples on the subject. Nonstandard analysis—on
which Martin wrote a classic—appears to shed light on some such phenomena.
Preface xv

“Banishing ultrafilters from our consciousness,” the title of the paper contributed
by Domenico Cantone with the editors of this book, echoes a comment by Martin in
his Applied Nonstandard Analysis (1977). Martin then pointed out that the intri-
cacies of the ultrapower construction of a nonstandard universe can be completely
forgotten in favor of a few principles relating standard/nonstandard,
internal/external objects. Bearing Martin’s motto in mind, this paper recounts, and
aided by a proof-checker embodying constructs for proof engineering, the authors
have undertaken a verification of key results of the nonstandard approach to
analysis.
The reader will also attend, inside this volume, Martin Davis and Hilary Putnam
resuming some threads of their juvenile philosophical discussion. Martin has
recently written about realism in mathematics (partly because Harvey Friedman had
judged him “an extreme Platonist”), and Hilary cannot resist to amicably respond to
his fascinating essay Pragmatic Platonism (also included in this book) and to
discuss the relation between Martin’s view and the views Hilary defends. In his
turn, Martin comments on Hilary’s remarks on his essay and takes the opportunity
to say a little more about his view about certain topics such as mathematics and
natural science, and new axioms for set theory.
The first chapter is an autobiographic essay by the eminent logician to whom the
entire book is devoted. An earlier version of this essay, published in 1999, was
titled “From Logic to Computer Science and Back.” Martin reports that his debut as
a computer programmer takes place in 1951, “without [him] realizing it,” while he
—a recent Ph.D. from Princeton, teaching recursive function theory at Champaign–
Urbana—is designing Turing machines; he then gets recruited for a project on an
automated system for navigating airplanes, with the task of writing code for an
ORDVAC machine. Short afterward, Martin conceives the idea of writing his first
book on computability; then, planning an extended visit to the Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton, he proposes to work on connections between logic
and information theory. In the following decades, he frequently moves across the
USA, teaching in various academic institutions and working on computability, on
Hilbert’s tenth problem, on computational logic, etc.
Multifaceted life and publications, but a substantial unity: in the new title chosen
for his enriched autobiography, Martin regards himself simply as a logician.

Trieste and Udine Eugenio G. Omodeo

February 2016 Alberto Policriti
Acknowledgements

The editors gratefully acknowledge invaluable help from Martin Davis and Yuri
Matiyasevich for many aspects of the preparation of this book. Martin, in particular,
supplied old manuscripts (his Ph.D. thesis, the research reports jointly written with
Hilary Putnam which are included as appendices) and re-read certain parts of the
draft of this book. Yuri offered great support for the preparation of Martin Davis’s
bibliography (Chap. 16).
Dominique Pastre (emeritus professor of computer science at UFR de
mathématiques et informatique, Université Paris Descartes) kindly accepted to be
an “anonymity server” to referees of her choice.
The anonymous second readers for this volume include the following:
Samson Abramsky, Department of Computer Science University of Oxford;
Johan van Benthem, University of Amsterdam and Stanford University;
Alessandro Berarducci, Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa;
Maria Paola Bonacina, Dip. di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Verona;
Patrick Cégielski, Université Paris Est Créteil;
Pietro Corvaja, Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Udine;
Liesbeth De Mol, Université de Lille 3, Villeneuve d’Ascq Cedex;
Francesco M. Donini, Università della Tuscia, Viterbo;
David Finkelstein, School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta;
Andrea Formisano, Università di Perugia;
Miriam Franchella, Dipartimento di Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Milano;
Jean-Pierre Keller, Sarl Kepler, Paris;
Gabriele Lolli, Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa;
Stefano Mancini, School of Science and Technology, University of Camerino;
Alberto Marcone, Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Università di Udine;
Alberto Martelli, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Torino;
Daniele Mundici, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science “Ulisse Dini,”
University of Florence;

xvii
xviii Acknowledgements

Andrea Sorbi, Dip. di Ingegneria dell’Informazione e Scienze Matematiche,

Università degli Studi di Siena; and
Carlo Toffalori, Dip. Matematica e Fisica, Univ. of Camerino.
Contents

1 My Life as a Logician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Martin Davis
2 Martin Davis and Hilbert’s Tenth Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Yuri Matiyasevich
3 Extensions of Hilbert’s Tenth Problem: Definability and
Decidability in Number Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Alexandra Shlapentokh
4 A Story of Hilbert’s Tenth Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Laura Elena Morales Guerrero
5 Hyperarithmetical Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Yiannis N. Moschovakis
6 Honest Computability and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Udi Boker and Nachum Dershowitz
7 Why Post Did [Not] Have Turing’s Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Wilfried Sieg, Máté Szabó and Dawn McLaughlin
8 On Quantum Computation, Anyons, and Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Andreas Blass and Yuri Gurevich
9 Taking Physical Infinity Seriously . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Don Perlis
10 Banishing Ultrafilters from Our Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Domenico Cantone, Eugenio G. Omodeo and Alberto Policriti
11 What Is Essential Unification? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Peter Szabo, Jörg Siekmann and Michael Hoche

xix
xx Contents

12 DPLL: The Core of Modern Satisfiability Solvers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

Donald Loveland, Ashish Sabharwal and Bart Selman
13 On Davis’s “Pragmatic Platonism” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Hilary Putnam
14 Pragmatic Platonism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Martin Davis
15 Concluding Comments by Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Martin Davis
16 Martin Davis’s Bibliography 1950–2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Eugenio G. Omodeo
Appendix A: “Feasible Computational Methods in the Propositional
Calculus”, the Seminal Report by M. Davis and H. Putnam . . . . . . . . . . 371
Appendix B: “Research on Hilbert’s Tenth Problem”, the Original
Paper by M. Davis and H. Putnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Subject Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
Contributors and Editors

Contributors

Andreas Blass is a professor of mathematics at the University of Michigan. He

received his Ph.D. degree from Harvard University in 1970 and has been at the
University of Michigan ever since except for brief leaves. He has also been a
visiting researcher at Microsoft Research during one of those leaves and during
each of the last 13 summers. His primary research area is set theory, but he has also
worked in other branches of logic, in theoretical computer science, and in finite
combinatorics. He is a fellow of the American Mathematical Society.
Udi Boker is a senior researcher in the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya,
working in the field of logic and verification. His main research areas concern the
foundations of computation, temporal logic, and automata.
Domenico Cantone is a professor of computer science since 1990. He is currently
at the University of Catania, Italy, where he moved from the University of
L’Aquila, Italy, in 1991. He received his Ph.D. degree from New York University
in 1987, under the supervision of Prof. Jacob T. Schwartz. Since 1995, he has been
a member of the Board of Directors of the journal “Le Matematiche.” His main
scientific interests include the following: computable set theory, automated
deduction in various mathematical theories, description logic, string matching and
algorithmic engineering, and, more recently, rational choice theory from a logical
point of view. In the field of computable set theory, he has coauthored three
monographs: Computable Set Theory (Clarendon Press, 1989), Set Theory for
Computing—From Decision Procedures to Declarative Programming with Sets
(Springer, 2001), and Computational Logic and Set Theory: Applying Formalized
Logic to Analysis, (Springer, 2011).
Nachum Dershowitz is professor of computational logic at Tel Aviv University,
where he has been since 1998. Prior to that, he was on the faculty of the University
of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He coauthored the book, Calendrical Calculations
(Cambridge University Press, 1997), with Edward Reingold, which won Choice’s

xxi
xxii Contributors and Editors

Outstanding Academic Title Award (2002) and is going into its fourth edition. He is
also the author of The Evolution of Programs (Birkhäuser, 1983), coauthor of
Calendrical Tabulations (Cambridge University Press, 2002), and editor of a dozen
other volumes. His research interests include foundations of computing, compu-
tational logic, computational humanities, and combinatorial enumeration. He has
received the Herbrand Award for Distinguished Contributions to Automated
Reasoning (2011), the Logic in Computer Science (LICS) Test-of-Time Award
(2006), the Rewriting Techniques and Applications (RTA) Test-of-Time Award
(2014), and the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE) Skolem Award
(2015) and was elected to Academia Europaea in 2013.
Yuri Gurevich is a principal researcher at Microsoft Research in Redmond,
Washington, USA. He is also Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan,
ACM Fellow, Guggenheim Fellow, EATCS Fellow, a foreign member of
Academia Europaea, and Dr. Honoris Causa of a Belgian and Russian universities.
Michael Hoche studied computer science at University of Stuttgart with visits at
József Attila University, Szeged, and University Pierre and Marie Curie, Paris. He
is currently working at Airbus Defense and Space, where he serves as analyst and
technologist in advanced computer science and its applications. He holds a Ph.D. in
computer science, which he obtained from University of Stuttgart. His current
interest comprises intelligent systems applications with a focus on data integration,
machine learning, and networks. Most recently, he contributes to the creation of the
research agenda of Airbus Defense and Space.
Donald Loveland attended Oberlin College, MIT, and New York University
(NYU) where he wrote his Ph.D. thesis under Martin Davis. He was on the faculties
of NYU (Bronx Campus) where Martin was briefly a colleague, CMU, and Duke
University where he was the first chairman of the Computer Science Department.
The author of Automated Theorem Proving: a Logical Basis (1978) is also one of
three authors of the undergraduate textbook Three Views of Logic (2014). He is
author or coauthor of papers in areas that include automated deduction (primary
area), complexity theory, testing procedures, logic programming, and expert sys-
tems; an ACM Fellow; and an AAAI Fellow, and he also received the Herbrand
Award (2001). He is now retired.
Yuri Matiyasevich has got (Russian analog of) Ph.D. from Leningrad (now St.
Petersburg) Division of Steklov Mathematical Institute in 1970 and ever since
works there, today as the Head of Laboratory of mathematical logic. He is mostly
known for his contribution to the (negative) solution of Hilbert’s tenth problem,
about which he wrote a book translated into English and French. He worked also in
theoretical computer science, graph theory, and number theory. He is full
member of Russian Academy of Sciences, corresponding member of Bavarian
Academy of Sciences, and member of Academia Europaea and Docteur Honoris
Causa de l’Université d’Auvergne et de Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris-6),
France.
Contributors and Editors xxiii

Dawn McLaughlin is a Ph.D. candidate in the philosophy department at Carnegie

Mellon University and did early work on Emil Post; however, her academic focus is
now on logic education. She is a collaborator on Wilfried Sieg’s AProS project, in
particular regarding the online logic course Logic and Proofs; she is the lead
developer of the LogicLab. Her dissertation is exploring the history and practice of
technology supported learning of logic.
Laura Elena Morales Guerrero was the second in a Mexican family of seven
children living in Tampico, Mexico. After receiving her undergraduate degree at the
University of Wisconsin, she began graduate studies in physics and mathematics at
the Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados (Cinvestav, IPN) in México
City. Her doctorate under Jerzy Plebański involved finding exact solutions of the
field equations of Einstein’s general relativity. She worked in the nuclear engi-
neering industry in Mexico and The Netherlands. While rearing her twin daughters,
she started a successful retail business in Mexico City. She remains an independent
researcher, and her most recent interests are in the history of mathematics, espe-
cially logic and number theory. She connected with Martin Davis through the email
list HM (History of Mathematics) and arranged for him to lecture at the Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) where she was a researcher at the time.
His talk stimulated her interest in Hilbert’s tenth problem and led her to write the
essay on the subject in this book. In his preface to her still unpublished book on the
ancient problem of squaring the circle, he wrote, “In this charming book, Dra.
Morales has traced the history of this problem, pausing along the way to explore
many fascinating sidelights.”
Yiannis N. Moschovakis emigrated to the USA from Greece in 1956. After four
years at MIT, three years at the University of Wisconsin and one year at Harvard, he
moved to UCLA in 1964 and has been there ever since, with long, annual sojourns
to Greece including a halftime position at the University of Athens (UOA) from
1996 until 2005. He has written two monographs and a textbook and has supervised
or cosupervised the doctoral dissertations of 22 students from the mathematics and
computer science Departments of UCLA, UOA, and the Graduate Program for
logic, algorithms, and computation in Athens. He retired in 2010 but has continued
teaching part-time as a Distinguished Research Professor.
Moschovakis has worked in abstract and higher-type recursion; in classical and
effective descriptive set theory, including the consequences of determinacy
hypotheses; and in philosophical logic, especially the logic of meaning and the
foundations of the theory of algorithms.
Don Perlis is a professor of computer science at the University of Maryland,
College Park. He has Ph.D.s in mathematics (NYU, 1972) and computer science
(Rochester, 1981). While his interests span a wide variety of areas, he recently has
come to realize that most of his work relates to self-reference in one form or
another, whether in logic, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, or philosophy.
xxiv Contributors and Editors

Hilary Putnam is Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. His

most recent publications include philosophy in an age of science (ed. by M. De
Caro and D. Macarthur, Harvard UP 2012) and naturalism, realism, and normativity
(ed. by M. De Caro, Harvard UP 2016). He is the subject of The Philosophy of
Hilary Putnam (ed. by R.E. Auxier, D.R. Anderson, and L.E. Hahn, Library of
Living Philosophers, Open Court 2015). He holds 12 honorary degrees and is a past
president of the American Philosophical Association, a fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy
and of the French Académie des Sciences Politiques et Morales. Recently, he has
been awarded the Prometheus Prize, the Rolf Schock Prize in logic and philosophy,
the Lauener Prize for analytical philosophy, and the Nicholas Rescher Prize for
systematic philosophy. His interests cover most philosophical areas.
Ashish Sabharwal investigates scalable and robust methods for probabilistic and
combinatorial inference, graphical models, and discrete optimization, as a research
scientist at the Allen Institute for AI (AI2), especially as they apply to assessing
machine intelligence through standardized examinations in science and math. Prior
to joining AI2, Ashish spent over three years at IBM Watson and five years at
Cornell University, after obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Washington in
2005. Ashish has coauthored over 70 publications, been part of winning teams in
international SAT competitions, and received five best paper awards and runner-up
prizes at venues such as AAAI, IJCAI, and UAI.
Bart Selman is a professor of computer science at Cornell University. He was
previously at AT&T Bell Laboratories. He specializes in artificial intelligence, with
an emphasis on efficient reasoning procedures, planning, knowledge representation,
and connections between computer science and statistical physics. He has (co)
authored over 150 publications, including six best paper awards. His papers have
appeared in venues spanning Nature, Science, Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sci., and a
variety of conferences and journals in AI and computer science. He has received the
Cornell Stephen Miles Excellence in Teaching Award, the Cornell Outstanding
Educator Award, an NSF Career Award, and an Alfred P. Sloan Research
Fellowship. He is a fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence
(AAAI) and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS). He received the inaugural IJCAI John McCarthy award in 2015.
Alexandra Shlapentokh is a professor of mathematics in East Carolina University
in Greenville, NC. She got her Ph.D. in mathematics in NYU in 1988 under
Professor Harold N. Shapiro. In graduate school, Alexandra Shlapentokh also had
the privilege of having Martin Davis as one of her professors. It is in his class that
she was introduced for the first time to Hilbert’s tenth problem which became one
of her lifelong interests, eventually encompassing many questions of definability
and computability in number theory. She described some of the developments in
this thriving field in her book: “Hilbert’s Tenth Problem: Diophantine Classes and
Other Extensions to Global Fields” (Cambridge University Press).
Contributors and Editors xxv

Wilfried Sieg is a patrick suppes professor of Philosophy at Carnegie Mellon

University and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He joined
Carnegie Mellon’s faculty in 1985 as a founding member of the University’s
Philosophy Department and served as its head from 1994 to 2005. He is interna-
tionally known for mathematical work in proof and computation theory, historical
work on modern logic and mathematics, and philosophical essays on the nature of
mathematics. A collection of essays joining the three aspects of his research was
published as Hilbert’s Programs and Beyond (Oxford University Press, 2013).
Jörg Siekmann studied mathematics at Göttingen University and computer sci-
ence at Essex University, England, where he received his Ph.D. in unification
theory in 1976. He was a scientific assistant at Karlsruhe University and became
professor for Artificial Intelligence at Kaiserslautern in 1983. In 1991, he was
appointed as a full professor for computer science and AI at Saarbrücken
University. He founded with friends the German Research Centre for Artificial
Intelligence (DFKI) and became one of its directors. He is now a senior professor at
the computer science department and DFKI in Saarbrücken.
Máté Szabó is a Ph.D. student in the philosophy department at Carnegie Mellon
University. His main interests concern the history and philosophy of computing, in
particular the interpretation of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, Church’s and
Turing’s Undecidability Theorems, and of the Church-Turing Thesis. Related to
these issues, he has been exploring the life and work of Emil Post and László
Kalmár. He is writing his dissertation on human and machine computation with
Wilfried Sieg as his advisor.
Peter Szabó studied computer science at the University of Karlsruhe where he
received his diploma in 1975 and worked there afterward as a scientific assistant.
He received his Ph.D. in unification theory from Karlsruhe University in 1982.
From 1983 to 2011, he was a research engineer for software in the R&D department
of the German Telecommunication company SEL, which later became part of
Alcatel-Lucent. Since 2003, he is a voluntary member of our research team dealing
with unification theory.
Andreas Blass Mathematics Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
Udi Boker School of Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel
Domenico Cantone DMI, Università di Catania, Catania, Italy
Martin Davis Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley,
CA, USA; Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New
York, NY, USA
Nachum Dershowitz School of Computer Science, Tel Aviv University, Ramat
Aviv, Israel
Yuri Gurevich Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA
xxvi Contributors and Editors

Michael Hoche Airbus Defense and Space, Immenstaad, Germany

Donald Loveland Duke University, Durham, USA
Yuri Matiyasevich Laboratory of Mathematical Logic, St. Petersburg Department
of V.A. Steklov Institute of Mathematics (POMI), Russian Academy of Sciences,
St. petersburg, Russia
Dawn McLaughlin Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
Laura Elena Morales Guerrero Centro de Investigación y de Estudios
Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional in Zacatenco, Ciudad de México,
Mexico
Yiannis N. Moschovakis Department of Mathematics, University of California,
Los Angeles, USA
Eugenio G. Omodeo DMG/DMI, Università di Trieste, Trieste, Italy
Don Perlis University of Maryland, College Park, USA
Alberto Policriti DMIF, Università di Udine, Udine, Italy
Hilary Putnam University of Harvard, Cambridge, USA
Ashish Sabharwal Allen Institute for AI, Seattle, USA
Bart Selman Cornell University, Ithaca, USA
Alexandra Shlapentokh East Carolina University, Greenville, USA
Wilfried Sieg Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA
Jörg Siekmann Saarland University/DFKI, Saarbrücken, Germany
Peter Szabo Pforzheim, Germany
Máté Szabó Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

About the Editors

Eugenio G. Omodeo studied mathematics at the University of Padua and then

computer science at the New York University, GSAS, where he earned Ph.D.
(1984) under the supervision of Martin Davis. From 1981 to 1989, he was
employed by companies belonging to ENI, the National Hydrocarbon Group of
Italy: There, after 1984, he coordinated R&D activities of Enidata in various pro-
jects funded by the European Commission (CEC), mainly focused on declarative
programming and on quick prototyping. From 1989 to present, he has been a
professor in various Italian universities (Udine, “La Sapienza” of Rome, Salerno,
L’Aquila, Trieste). He has contributed to computational logic with the discovery of
inference methods based on set theory, some of which have been implemented in a
Contributors and Editors xxvii

large-scale proof verifier developed with Jacob T. Schwartz (NYU). He coauthored

three scientific monographs on computable set theory.
Alberto Policriti received his degree in mathematics from the Universtiy of Turin
in 1984 and his Ph.D. in computer science under the supervision of M. Davis in
1990. From 1989, he is at the University of Udine, where he is currently professor
of computer science at the Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and
Physics. His main research interests are related to computational logic and algo-
rithms: set-theoretic and combinatorial algorithms and problems, modal and tem-
poral logics, and algorithms and models for bioinformatics. He has coauthored two
monographs and has supervised or co-supervised 15 doctoral dissertations in Logic,
Algorithms, and Bioinformatics. He is one of the four founders of the “Istituto di
Genomica Applicata,” has been member of the scientific committee of
GNCS—“Istituto di Alta Matematica,” and he is currently member of the scientific
committee of the EATCS.
Chapter 1
My Life as a Logician

Martin Davis

“My father and mother were honest, though poor –”

“Skip all that!” cried the Bellman in haste.
“If it once becomes dark, there’s no chance of a snark–
We have hardly a minute to waste!”
“I skip forty years,” said the Baker, in tears,
“And proceed without further remark …”
–Lewis Carroll’s “The Hunting of the Snark”

Abstract This brief autobiography highlights events that have had a significant
effect on my professional development.

I was just over a year old when the great stock market crash occurred. My parents,
Polish Jews, had immigrated to the United States after the First World War. My
father’s trade was machine embroidery of women’s apparel and bedspreads. During
the depression, embroidery was hardly in great demand, so we were dependent on
home relief—what today would be called “welfare”. Only with the upturn of the
economy coming with the outbreak of war in 1939, was my father able to find steady
work. In his spare time, he was a wonderful self-taught painter. (One of his paintings
is in the collection of the Jewish Museum in New York and two others are at the Judah
Magnus Museum in Berkeley.) My mother, eager to contribute to the family income,
taught herself the corsetiere’s craft. Until I left New York for graduate school, the
room where she conducted her business by day was my bedroom at night.

This is a revision and expansion to the present of an earlier autobiographical essay [22], much
of which is included verbatim. I am grateful to Springer Verlag for their permission.

M. Davis (B)
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
e-mail: martin@eipye.com
M. Davis
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University, New York, NY, USA

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 1

E.G. Omodeo and A. Policriti (eds.), Martin Davis on Computability,
Computational Logic, and Mathematical Foundations,
Outstanding Contributions to Logic 10, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-41842-1_1
2 M. Davis

In the New York City public schools, I was an adequate, but not at all exceptional,
student. I’ve always enjoyed writing, but an interest in numbers came early as well. I
remember trying to find someone who could teach me long division before I encoun-
tered it in school. My parents, whose schooling was minimal, could not help. My
first “theorem” was the explanation of a card trick. I learned the trick from a friend
who had no idea why it worked; I was delighted to see that I could use the algebra I
was being taught in junior high school to explain it.
It was at the Bronx High School of Science that I first found myself with young
people who shared the interests I had been developing in mathematics and physics.
My burning ambition was to really understand Einstein’s theory of relativity. There
were a number of books available in the local public library as well in the school
library, but I couldn’t understand many of the equations. Somehow I got the idea that
it was calculus I needed to learn, so I got a textbook and taught myself. When I arrived
at City College as a freshman, I was able to begin with advanced calculus. During
those years, the math majors at City College were an enthusiastic talented group many
of whom eventually became professional mathematicians. The faculty, on the other
hand, was badly overworked, and, with a few notable exceptions, had long since lost
their enthusiasm. Even by the standards of the time, teaching loads were excessive,
and none of the usual amenities of academic life (such as offices and secretarial help)
were available. Only very few of the most determined faculty members remained
active researchers. In addition to these obstacles, Emil Post struggled against physical
and psychological handicaps: his left arm had been amputated in childhood and he
suffered from periodically disabling manic-depressive disease. Nevertheless, Post
not only continued a program of important fundamental research, but also willingly
accepted students for special advanced studies on top of his regular teaching load (16
contact hours). I absorbed his belief in the overriding importance of the computability
concept and especially of Turing’s formulation.
At City College my academic performance was hardly outstanding. I allowed
myself the luxury of working hard only on what interested me. My A grades were
in mathematics, German, history, and philosophy. My worst class was a required
general biology course. I hated the amount of memorization of names of plant and
animal parts I had no desire to know, and found genuinely difficult the “practicums”,
in which we were asked to identify specimens we viewed under the microscope. I
actually failed the course, and even on the second try only managed a C.
During my Freshman and Sophomore years, my passionate interest was in the
foundations of real analysis. I learned various alternate approaches and proofs of the
main theorems. I spent weeks working out the convergence behavior of the sequence

s0 = 1; sn+1 = x sn

for x > 0. (It converges for (1/e)e < x < e1/e . The case 0 < x < 1 is tricky because,
although the even-numbered terms and the odd-numbered terms each converge, when
x < (1/e)e their limits are different.) I liked sequences and saw how to prove that
every sequence of real numbers has a monotone subsequence as a way of obtaining
the basic theorems. I even wrote quite a few chapters of a proposed textbook.
1 My Life as a Logician 3

My fellow student John Stachel and I began to be interested in logic, and at

his suggestion, we approached Post about a reading course in mathematical logic.
Thus, in my junior year, we began studying an early version of Alonzo Church’s
textbook under Post’s supervision. Unfortunately, it only lasted a few weeks: Post
had made his discovery of the existence of incomparable degrees of unsolvability, the
excitement precipitated a manic episode, and he was institutionalized. The following
year Post was back and we spent a great deal of time talking about logic. He gave
me a collection of his reprints and also referred me to Kleene’s paper [37]. This was
a paper Kleene had written in haste to get some results in publishable form before
he was requisitioned for war work. For me this was a boon because it was written
in a relatively informal style quite unlike Kleene’s usual more opaque exposition. I
spent a lot of time filling in the gaps, and in the process became enamored of the
Herbrand-Gödel-Kleene equation formalism. In considerable part, my dissertation
developed from that paper.
Kleene’s paper showed that the sets definable in the language of arithmetic1
formed a natural hierarchy in terms of alternating strings

∃∀∃ . . . or ∀∃∀ . . .

of quantifiers applied to a computable relation: each additional quantifier makes it

possible to define new sets. This result was applied to give short incisive proofs of
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and the unsolvability results of Alonzo Church.
I would undoubtedly have remained at City College for my graduate studies to
work with Post if that option had been available. But City College was strictly an
undergraduate school, and I had to look elsewhere. I had offers of financial sup-
port from Princeton, where I could work with Church, and from the University of
Wisconsin, where Kleene would have been my mentor. Post advised me to go to
Princeton, and that is what I did. There was quite a culture clash between my New
York Jewish working-class background and the genteel Princeton atmosphere, and
at one point it seemed that my financial support would not be renewed for a second
year for reasons having nothing to do with my academic performance. Although
eventually I was given support for a second year, the unpleasantness made me eager
to leave. Fortunately, the requirements at Princeton were sufficiently flexible that it
was quite possible to obtain a Ph.D. in just 2 years, and that is what I did.
The problem that I knew would readily yield results was the extension of Kleene’s
arithmetic hierarchy into the constructive transfinite, what later became known as the
hyperarithmetic sets. Post had shown that the successive layers of Kleene’s hierarchy
could also be generated using the jump operator,2 and it was easy to see how to extend
this method into the transfinite. But the problem that I found irresistibly seductive

1 That is, the language using the symbols ¬ ⊃ ∨ ∧ ∃ ∀ = of elementary logic together with the
symbols 0 1 + × of arithmetic.
2 The jump of a set A of natural numbers may be understood as the set of (numerical codes of) those

Turing machines that will eventually halt when starting with a blank tape and able to obtain answers
to any question of the form “n ∈ A?”.
4 M. Davis

was Hilbert’s tenth problem, the problem of the existence of integer solutions to
polynomial Diophantine equations. Post had declared that the problem “begs for
an unsolvability proof” and I longed to find one. Not being at all expert in number
theory, I thought that it was foolish to spend my time on Diophantine equations when
I had a dissertation to write and a sure thing to work on. But I couldn’t keep away
from Hilbert’s tenth problem.
Diophantine problems often occur with parameters. In general one can consider
a polynomial equation
p(a1 , . . . , am , x1 , . . . , xn ) = 0

where p is a polynomial with integer coefficients, a1 , . . . , am are parameters whose

range is the natural numbers, and x1 , . . . , xn are unknowns. I began to study Dio-
phantine sets, that is, sets that could be defined by such an equation as the set of
m-tuples of values of the parameters for which the corresponding equation has a
solution in natural numbers.3 Another way to say this is that Diophantine sets are
those definable by an expression of the form

(∃x1 . . . xn )[ p(a1 , . . . , am , x1 , . . . , xn ) = 0].

It was not hard to see that the class of Diophantine sets is not only a sub-class of the
class of recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets,4 but also shares a number of important
properties with that class. In particular, both classes are easily seen to be closed
under union and intersection, and under existential quantification of the defining
expressions. A crucial property of the class of r.e. sets, a property that leads to
unsolvability results, is that the class is not closed under taking complements. I was
quite excited when I realized that the class of Diophantine sets has the same property.
This was because if the Diophantine sets were closed under complementation, then
the de Morgan relation
∀ = ¬∃¬

would lead to the false conclusion that all of the sets in Kleene’s hierarchy, all
arithmetically definable sets, are Diophantine. (False because there are arithmetically
definable sets that are not r.e. and hence certainly not Diophantine.) Although this
proof is quite non-constructive,5 the result certainly suggested that the classes of
r.e. sets and of Diophantine sets might be one and the same. If every r.e. set were
indeed Diophantine, there would be a Diophantine set that is not computable which
would lead at once to the unsolvability of Hilbert’s tenth problem in a particularly
strong form. So, I began what turned into a 20 year quest, the attempt to prove that

3 For example, the “Pell” equation (x + 1)2 − d(y + 1)2 = 1 has natural number solutions in x, y
just in case d belongs to the set consisting of 0 and all positive integers that are not perfect squares;
hence that latter set is Diophantine.
4 A set of natural numbers is r.e. if it is the set of inputs to some given Turing machine for which

that machine eventually halts.

5 It furnishes no example of a Diophantine set whose complement is not Diophantine.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
warmly by the hand, as he inquired whether he knew him. Ewart
replied in the negative. A short explanation sufficed. The stranger
was the father of the child whom he had saved, come to tender his
thanks in a more substantial manner than was in his power on the
retreat in Holland. He had since that period been raised to the rank
of sergeant-major, and the little orphan was then a thriving boy at
home with his grandmother. He insisted on presenting Ewart with a
sum of money, but the offer was firmly rejected. He pressed him,
however, to accept a silver watch as a memento of his gratitude.
With the exception of a small portion of the regiment which took
part in the Peninsular War, the Scots Greys were not again called
abroad till 1815. During the intervening period, no opportunity of
distinguishing themselves occurred. Ewart, who had borne himself
with uniform propriety, and gained the esteem of his superior
officers by his soldierly conduct, was early advanced as a sergeant,
while his skill in the sword exercise procured him further emolument
by being appointed master-of-fence to the regiment. The unlooked-
for escape of Napoleon from Elba gave a new impulse to the military
ardour of this country. The Greys, as well as the household troops,
were called to arms, and in the short but important campaign in
Belgium, covered themselves with glory on the plains of Waterloo.
The splendid charge of General Ponsonby’s cavalry brigade—
composed of the First Royals, Greys, and Inniskillings—is matter of
history. It was in one of those dashing affairs on the 18th, when
covering the Highland brigade against a dense mass of Invincibles,
that the two eagles were captured by the Greys and Royals. As the
cavalry passed through the open columns of the Highlanders, the cry
of “Scotland for ever!” created an enthusiasm which nothing could
withstand, and the French infantry were scattered before them.
Upwards of two thousand prisoners were taken in this single onset.
Sergeant Ewart was engaged hand to hand with an officer, whom he
was about to cut down, when a young ensign of the Greys interceded
in his behalf, and desired that he might be passed to the rear. He had
scarcely complied with the request, when, on hearing the report of a
pistol, he turned and beheld the ensign falling from his saddle, and
the French officer in the act of replacing the weapon with which he
had savagely taken the life of his preserver. Enraged at the
ingratitude of the Frenchman, Ewart immediately turned upon him,
and, deaf to his supplications, cut him down to the brisket. This was
the work only of a moment, for the conflict still raged, the French
infantry having been supported by a numerous array of cuirassiers
and lancers. Dashing forward, he now came within reach of the
standard-bearer of one of the Invincible regiments to which they
were opposed. A short conflict ensued, when the French officer fell
beneath Ewart’s sword, and the staff of the eagle stuck fast in the
ground, which was soft, so that he was enabled to lay hold of it
without further trouble. Had the standard fallen, he could not have
recovered it in the melée. Wheeling round, Ewart was in the act of
making off with his prize, when a lancer, singling him out, galloped
forward and hurled his spear at his breast. With all his reputed
quickness in defence, he had just strength enough to ward off the
blow, so that the lance merely grazed his side; then raising himself in
his stirrups, he brought his antagonist to the ground with one cut of
his sword. In riding away with the valuable trophy, Ewart
experienced another narrow escape—a wounded Frenchman, whom
he had supposed to be dead, having raised himself on his elbow, and
fired at him as he passed. The ball fortunately missed him, and he
escaped to the rear, when he was ordered to proceed with the
standard to Brussels.
The prowess of Ewart was greatly applauded, not less in Belgium
and France than in Britain, and he subsequently, through the
influence of the late Sir John Sinclair, obtained a commission in a
veteran battalion as a reward for his services. When in Edinburgh in
1816, he was invited to a Waterloo dinner at Leith, where Sir Walter
Scott proposed his health in an eloquent and highly complimentary
speech. Little accustomed to civilian society, Lieutenant Ewart felt
diffident to reply; and, in a note to the chairman, begged that he
might be excused, adding, with the bluntness of a soldier, that “he
would rather fight the battle of Waterloo over again, than face so
large an assemblage.” The company, however, would not be denied
the gratification of a full-length view of his person, and he was under
the necessity of shaking off his diffidence by acknowledging the toast
in a brief reply, which he made amidst the rapturous cheers of his
entertainers. He was also publicly entertained at dinner in Ayr and
Kilmarnock, and was presented with the freedom of Irvine.
 CATCHING A TARTAR.

By D. M. Moir.

From the first moment I clapped eye on the caricature thing of a

coat that Tammie Bodkin had, in my absence, shaped out for
Cursecowl the butcher, I foresaw, in my own mind, that a
catastrophe was brewing for us; and never did soldier gird himself to
fight the French, or sailor prepare for a sea-storm, with greater
alacrity, than I did to cope with the bull-dog anger, and buffet back
the uproarious vengeance of our heathenish customer.
At first I thought of letting the thing take its natural course, and of
threaping down Cursecowl’s throat that he must have been
feloniously keeping in his breath when Tammie took his measure;
and, moreover, that as it was the fashion to be straight-laced,
Tammie had done his utmost trying to make him look like his
betters; till, my conscience checking me for such a nefarious
intention, I endeavoured, as became me in the relations of man,
merchant, and Christian, to solder the matter peaceably, and show
him, if there was a fault committed, that there was no evil intention
on my side of the house. To this end I despatched the bit servant
wench, on the Friday afternoon, to deliver the coat, which was neatly
tied up in brown paper, and directed, “Mr Cursecowl, with care,” and
to buy a sheep’s-head; bidding her, by way of being civil, give my
kind compliments, and inquire how Mr and Mrs Cursecowl, and the
five little Miss Cursecowls, were keeping their healths, and trusting
to his honour in sending me a good article. But have a moment’s
patience.
Being busy at the time turning a pair of kuttikins for old Mr
Mooleypouch the mealmonger, when the lassie came back I had no
mind of asking a sight of the sheep’s-head, as I aye like the little
blackfaced in preference to the white, fat, fozy Cheviot breed; but
most providentially I catched a gliskie of the wench passing the shop
window, on the road over to Jamie Coom the smith’s, to get it singed,
having been dispatched there by her mistress. Running round the
counter like lightning, I opened the sneck, and halooed to her to
wheel to the right about, having, somehow or other, a superstitious
longing to look at the article. As I was saying, there was a providence
in this, which, at the time, mortal man could never have thought of.
James Batter had popped in with a newspaper in his hand, to read
me a curious account of a mermaid that was seen singing a Gaelic
song, and combing its hair with a tortoise-shell comb, someway
terrible far north about Shetland, by a respectable minister of the
district, riding home in the gloaming after a Presbytery dinner. So, as
he was just taking off his spectacles cannily, and saying to me—“And
was not that droll?”—the lassie spread down her towel on the
counter, when, lo, and behold! such an abominable spectacle! James
Batter observing me run back, and turn white, put on his glasses
again, cannily taking them out of his well-worn shagreen case, and,
giving a stare down at the towel, almost touched the beast’s nose
with his own.
“And what, in the name of goodness, is the matter?” quo’ James
Batter; “ye seem in a wonderful quandary.”
“The matter!” answered I, in astonishment, looking to see if the
man had lost his sight or his senses; “the matter! who ever saw a
sheep’shead with straight horns, and a visnomy all colours of the
rainbow—red, blue, orange, green, yellow, white, and black?”
“’Deed it is,” said James, after a nearer inspection; “it must be a
lowsynaturay. I’m sure I have read most of Buffon’s books, and I
have never heard tell of the like. It’s gey and queerish.”
“’Od, James,” answered I, “ye take everything very canny; you’re a
philosopher, to be sure; but I daresay if the moon was to fall from the
lift, and knock down the old kirk, ye would say no more than ‘it’s gey
and queerish.’”
“Queerish, man! Do ye not see that?” added I, shoving down his
head mostly on the top of it. “Do ye not see that? awful, most awful!
extonishing!! Do ye not see that long beard? Who, in the name of
goodness, ever was an eyewitness to a sheep’s-head, in a Christian
land, with a beard like an unshaven Jew, crying ‘owl clowes,’ with a
green bag over his left shoulder?”
“Dog on it,” said James, giving a fidge with his hainches; “dog on
it, as I am a living sinner, that is the head of a Willie-goat.”
“Willie or Nannie,” answered I, “it’s not meat for me; and never
shall an ounce of it cross the craig of my family—that is as sure as
ever James Batter drave a shuttle. Give counsel in need, James: what
is to be done?”
“That needs consideration,” quo’ James, giving a bit hoast. “Unless
he makes ample apology, and explains the mistake in a feasible way,
it is my humble opinion that he ought to be summoned before his
betters. That is the legal way to make him smart for his sins.”
At last a thought struck me, and I saw farther through my
difficulties than ever mortal man did through a millstone; but, like a
politician, I minted not the matter to James. Keeping my tongue
cannily within my teeth, I then laid the head, wrapped up in the bit
towel, in a corner behind the counter; and turning my face round
again to James, I put my hands into my breeches-pockets, as if
nothing in the world had happened, and ventured back to the story of
the mermaid. I asked him how she looked—what kind of dress she
wore—if she swam with her corsets—what was the colour of her hair
—where she would buy the tortoise-shell comb—and so on; when just
as he was clearing his pipe to reply, who should burst open the shop-
door like a clap of thunder, with burning cat’s een, and a face as red
as a soldier’s jacket, but Cursecowl himself, with the new killing-coat
in his hand, which, giving a tremendous curse (the words of which
are not essentially necessary for me to repeat, being an elder of our
kirk), he made play flee at me with such a birr, that it twisted round
my neck, and mostly blinding me, made me doze like a tottum. At the
same time, to clear his way, and the better to enable him to take a
good mark, he gave James Batter a shove, that made him stoiter
against the wall, and snacked the good new farthing tobacco-pipe,
that James was taking his first whiff out of; crying at the same
blessed moment—
“Hold out o’ my road, ye long, withered wabster. Ye’re a pair of
havering idiots; but I’ll have pennyworths out of both your skins, as
I’m a sinner!”
 What was to be done? There was no time for speaking; for
Cursecowl, foaming like a mad dog with passion, seized hold of the
ell-wand, which he flourished round his head like a Highlander’s
broadsword, and stamping about with his stockings drawn up his
thighs, threatened every moment to commit bloody murder.
If James Batter never saw service before, he learned a little of it
that day, being in a pickle of bodily terror not to be imagined by
living man; but his presence of mind did not forsake him, and he
cowered for safety and succour into a far corner, holding out a web of
buckram before him, me crying all the time—“Send for the town-
officer! Will ye not send for the town-officer?”
You may talk of your General Moores and your Lord Wellingtons
as ye like; but never, since I was born, did I ever see or hear tell of
anything braver than the way Tammy Bodkin behaved, in saving
both our precious lives, at that blessed nick of time, from touch-and-
go jeopardy; for, when Cursecowl was rampauging about, cursing
and swearing like a Russian bear, hurling out volleys of oaths that
would have frighted John Knox, forbye the like of us, Tammie stole
in behind him like a wild cat, followed by Joseph Breekey, Walter
Cuff, and Jack Thorl, the three apprentices, on their stocking-soles;
and having strong and dumpy arms, pinned back his elbows like a
flash of lightning, giving the other callants time to jump on his back,
and hold him like a vice; while, having got time to draw my breath,
and screw up my pluck, I ran forward like a lion, and houghed the
whole concern—Tammie Bodkin, the three faithful apprentices,
Cursecowl, and all, coming to the ground like a battered castle.
It was now James Batter’s time to come up in line; and though a
douce man (being savage for the insulting way that Cursecowl had
dared to use him), he dropped down like mad, with his knees on
Cursecowl’s breast, who was yelling, roaring, and grinding his buck-
teeth like a mad bull, kicking right and spurring left with fire and
fury; and, taking his Kilmarnock off his head, thrust it, like a
battering-ram, into Cursecowl’s mouth, to hinder him from alarming
the neighbourhood, and bringing the whole world about our ears.
Such a stramash of tumbling, roaring, tearing, swearing, kicking,
pushing, cuffing, rugging, and riving about the floor!! I thought they
would not have left one another with a shirt on: it seemed a combat
even to the death. Cursecowl’s breath was choked up within him, like
wind in an empty bladder; and when I got a gliskie of his face, from
beneath James’s cowl, it was growing as black as the crown of my
hat. It feared me much that murder would be the upshot, the webs
being all heeled over, both of broad cloth, buckram, cassimir, and
Welsh flannel; and the paper shapings and worsted runds coiled
about their throats and bodies like fiery serpents. At long and last, I
thought it became me, being the head of the house, to sound a parley,
and bid them give the savage a mouthful of fresh air, to see if he had
anything to say in his defence.
Cursecowl, by this time, had forcible assurance of our ability to
overpower him, and finding he had by far the worst of it, was obliged
to grow tamer, using the first breath he got to cry out—
“A barley, ye thieves! a barley! I tell you, give me wind. There’s not
a man in nine of ye!”
Finding our own strength, we saw, by this time, that we were
masters of the field; nevertheless we took care to make good terms
when they were in our power, nor would we allow Cursecowl to sit
upright till after he had said, three times over, on his honour as a
gentleman, that he would behave as became one.
After giving his breeches-knees a skuff with his loof, to dad off the
stoure, he came, right foot foremost, to the counter-side, while the
laddies were dighting their brows, and stowing away the webs upon
their ends round about, saying,—
“Maister Wauch, how have ye the conscience to send hame such a
piece o’ wark as that coat to ony decent man? Do ye dare to imagine
that I am a Jerusalem spider, that I could be crammed, neck and
heels, into such a thing as that? Fie, shame—it would not button on
yourself, man, scarecrow-looking mortal though ye be!”
James Batter’s blood was now up, and boiling like an old Roman’s;
so he was determined to show Cursecowl that I had a friend in court,
able and willing to keep him at stave’s end.
“Keep a calm sough,” said James Batter, interfering; “and not
miscall the head of the house in his own shop; or, to say nothing of
present consequences, by way of showing ye the road to the door,
perhaps Maister Sneckdrawer, the penny-writer, ’ll give ye a caption-
paper with a broad margin, to claw your elbow with at your leisure,
my good fellow.”
 “Pugh, pugh!” cried Cursecowl, snapping his finger and thumb at
James’s beak; “I do not value your threatening an ill halfpenny.
Come away out your ways to the crown of the causey, and I’ll box any
three of ye, over the bannys, for half-a-mutchkin. But, ’odsake,
Batter, my man, nobody’s speaking to you,” added Cursecowl, giving
a hack now and then, and a bit spit down on the floor; “go hame,
man, and get your cowl washed; I daresay you have pushioned me, so
I have no more to say to the like of you. But now, Maister Wauch,
just speaking hooly and fairly, do you not think black burning shame
of yourself, for putting such an article into any decent Christian
man’s hand, like mine?”
“Wait a wee—wait a wee, friend, and I’ll give ye a lock salt to your
broth,” answered I, in a calm and cool way; for, being a confidential
elder of Maister Wiggie’s, I kept myself free from the sin of getting
into a passion, or fighting, except in self-defence, which is forbidden
neither by law nor gospel; and, stooping down, I took up the towel
from the corner, and, spreading it upon the counter, bade him look,
and see if he knew an auld acquaintance!
Cursecowl, to be such a dragoon, had some rational points in his
character; so, seeing that he lent ear to me with a smirk on his rough
red face, I went on:
“Take my advice as a friend, and make the best of your way home,
killing-coat and all; for the most perfect will sometimes fall into an
innocent mistake, and, at any rate, it cannot be helped now. But if ye
show any symptom of obstripulosity, I’ll find myself under the
necessity of publishing you abroad to the world for what you are, and
show about that head in the towel for a wonder to broad Scotland, in
a manner that will make customers flee from your booth, as if it was
infected with the seven plagues of Egypt.”
At sight of the goat’s head, Cursecowl clapped his hand on his
thigh two or three times, and could scarcely muster good manners
enough to keep himself from bursting out a-laughing.
“Ye seem to have found a fiddle, friend,” said I; “but give me leave
to tell you, that ye’ll may be find it liker a hanging-match than a
musical matter. Are you not aware that I could hand you over to the
sheriff, on two special indictments? In the first place, for an action of
assault and batterification, in cuffing me, an elder of our kirk, with a
sticked killing-coat, in my own shop; and, in the second place, as a
swindler, imposing on his Majesty’s loyal subjects, taking the coin of
the realm on false pretences, and palming off goat’s flesh upon
Christians, as if they were perfect Pagans.”
Heathen though Cursecowl was, this oration alarmed him in a
jiffie, soon showing him, in a couple of hurries, that it was necessary
for him to be our humble servant; so he said, still keeping the smirk
on his face—
“Keh, keh, it’s not worth making a noise about after all. Gie me the
jacket, Mansie, my man, and it’ll maybe serve my nephew, young
Killim, who is as lingit in the waist as a wasp. Let us take a shake of
your paw over the counter, and be friends. Bye-ganes should be bye-
ganes.”
Never let it be said that Mansie Wauch, though one of the king’s
volunteers, ever thrust aside the olive branch of peace; so, ill-used
though I had been, to say nothing of James Batter, who had got his
pipe smashed to crunches, and one of the eyes of his spectacles
knocked out, I gave him my fist frankly.
James Batter’s birse had been so fiercely put up, and no wonder,
that it was not so easily sleeked down; so, for a while, he looked unco
glum, till Cursecowl insisted that our meeting should not be a dry
one; nor would he hear a single word on me and James Batter not
accepting his treat of a mutchkin of Kilbagie.
I did not think James would have been so doure and refractory,
funking and flinging like old Jeroboam; but at last, with the
persuasion of the treat, he came to, and, sleeking down his front hair,
we all three took a step down to the far end of the close, at the back
street, where Widow Thamson kept the sign of ‘The Tankard and the
Tappit Hen;’ Cursecowl, when we got ourselves seated, ordering in
the spirits with a loud rap on the table with his knuckles, and a
whistle on the landlady through his foreteeth, that made the roof
ring. A bottle of beer was also brought; so, after drinking one
another’s healths round, with a tasting out of the dram glass,
Cursecowl swashed the rest of the raw creature into the tankard,
saying—
“Now take your will o’t; there’s drink fit for a king; that’s real ‘Pap-
in.’”
 He was an awful body, Cursecowl, and had a power of queer
stories, which, weel-a-wat, did not lose in the telling. James Batter,
beginning to brighten up, hodged and leuch like a nine-year-old; and
I freely confess, for another, that I was so diverted, that, I daresay,
had it not been for his fearsome oaths, which made our very hair
stand on end, and were enough to open the stone-wall, we would
have both sate from that time to this.
We got the whole story of the Willie-goat, out and out, it seeming
to be with Cursecowl a prime matter of diversion, especially that part
of it relating to the head, by which he had won a crown-piece from
Deacon Paunch, who wagered that the wife and me would eat it,
without ever finding out our mistake. But, aha, lad!
The long and the short of the matter was this. The Willie-goat had,
for eighteen years, belonged to a dragoon marching regiment, and, in
its better days, had seen a power of service abroad; till, being now old
and infirm, it had fallen off one of the baggage-carts, and got its leg
broken on the road to Piershill, where it was sold to Cursecowl, by a
corporal, for half-a-crown and a dram. The four quarters he had
managed to sell for mutton, like lightning, this one buying a jigget,
that one a back ribs, and so on. However, he had to weather a gey
brisk gale in making his point good. One woman remarked that it
had an unearthly, rank smell; to which he said, “No, no—ye do not
ken your blessings, friend; that’s the smell of venison, for the beast
was brought up along with the deers in the Duke’s parks.” And to
another wife, that, after smell-smelling at it, thought it was a wee
humphed, he replied, “Faith, that’s all the thanks folks get for letting
their sheep crop heather among the Cheviot hills,” and such-like lies.
But as for the head, that had been the doure business. Six times had
it been sold and away, and six times had it been brought back again.
One bairn said that her “mother didna like a sheep’s-head with horns
like these,” and wanted it changed for another one. A second one
said, that “it had tup’s een, and her father liked wether mutton.” A
third customer found mortal fault with the colours, which, she said,
“were not canny, or in the course of nature.” What the fourth one
said, and the fifth one took leave to observe, I have stupidly
forgotten, though, I am sure, I heard both; but I mind one remarked,
quite off-hand, as she sought back her money, that “unless sheep
could do without beards, like their neighbours, she would keep the
pot boiling with a piece beef, in the meantime.” After all this—would
any mortal man believe it?—Deacon Paunch, the greasy Daniel
Lambert that he is, had taken the wager, as I before took opportunity
to remark, that our family would swallow the bait! But, aha, he was
off his eggs there!
James and me were so tickled with Cursecowl’s wild, outrageous,
off-hand, humoursome way of telling his crack, that, though sore
with neighering, none of the two of us ever thought of rising;
Cursecowl chapping in first one stoup, and then another, and birling
the tankard round the table, as if we had been drinking dub-water. I
daresay I would never have got away, had I not slipped out behind
Lucky Thamson’s back—for she was a broad fat body, with a round-
eared mutch, and a full-plaited check apron—when she was drawing
the sixth bottle of small beer, with her corkscrew between her knees;
Cursecowl lecturing away, at the dividual moment, like a Glasgow
professor, to James Batter, whose een were gathering straws, on a
pliskie he had once, in the course of trade, played on a conceited
body of a French sick-nurse, by selling her a lump of fat pork to make
beef-tea of to her mistress, who was dwining in the blue Beelzebubs.
Ohone, and woe’s me, for old Father Adam and the fall of man!
Poor, sober, good, honest James Batter was not, by a thousand miles,
a match for such company. Everything, however, has its moral, and
the truth will out. When Nanse and me were sitting at our breakfast
next morning, we heard from Benjie, who had been early up fishing
for eels at the water-side, that the whole town talk was concerning
the misfortunate James Batter, who had been carried home, totally
incapable, far in the night, by Cursecowl and an Irish labourer—that
sleeped in Widow Thamson’s garret—on a hand-barrow, borrowed
from Maister Wiggie’s servant-lass, Jenny Jessamine.—Mansie
Wauch.

Commercial Printing Company, Edinburgh.

 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and
variations in spelling.
2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings
as printed.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOK OF
SCOTTISH STORY ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS