Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Outstanding Contributions to Logic ((OCTR,volume 10))

  • 393 Accesses

Abstract

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

“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”

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    That is, the language using the symbols \(\lnot \supset \vee \wedge \exists \; \forall \, =\) of elementary logic together with the symbols \(0 \;\, 1 \, + \, \times \) of arithmetic.

  2. 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 “\(n \in A?\)”.

  3. 3.

    For example, the “Pell” equation \((x+1)^2 - d(y+1)^2 = 1\) has natural number solutions in xy 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. 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. 5.

    It furnishes no example of a Diophantine set whose complement is not Diophantine.

  6. 6.

    Actually, Kleene’s system \(S_3\).

  7. 7.

    Actually without any bound on the ordinal all the sets in the hierarchy are representable with only one second order function quantifer.

  8. 8.

    Clifford Spector showed that the result remains true for all constructive ordinals in his dissertation, written a few years later under Kleene’s supervision.

  9. 9.

    In [40] p. 61.

  10. 10.

    Actually, indices of r.e. sets.

  11. 11.

    [1, 2].

  12. 12.

    The report was reprinted in [43], pp. 41–48.

  13. 13.

    The existence of “minimal” degrees. Only 31 years old, Clifford Spector died quite suddenly in 1961 of acute leukemia, a tragic loss.

  14. 14.

    [7].

  15. 15.

    The translator for the Italian version called it a “libro classico”.

  16. 16.

    A review of the Dover edition by David Harel referred to the book as one of the few “classics” in computer science.

  17. 17.

    \((\forall k)_{\le y} (\exists u) \;\ldots \) is equivalent to saying that there exists a sequence \(u_0 , u_1 , \ldots u_y \) of numbers satisfying \(\ldots \) The use of the Chinese Remainder theorem to code finite sequences of integers had been used by Gödel to show that any recursively defined relation could be defined in terms of addition, multiplication and purely logical operations. I had used the same device in obtaining my normal form.

  18. 18.

    [27].

  19. 19.

    Abraham Robinson had proposed similar investigations in a talk at the Cornell Institute. I attended that talk, but Hilary didn’t. Somehow, I didn’t connect the two ideas until years later when I noticed Robinson’s paper in the proceedings of the Institute.

  20. 20.

    [40] p. 93.

  21. 21.

    What has become known as the satisfiability problem.

  22. 22.

    These are:

    1. 1.

      The one literal rule also known as the unit rule .

    2. 2.

      The affirmative-negative rule also known as the pure literal[3.] rule.

    3. 4.

      The rule for eliminating atomic formulas

    4. 5.

      The splitting rule, called in the report, the rule of case analysis

    The procedure proposed in our later published paper used rules 1, 2, and 3. The computer program written by Logemann and Loveland discussed below used 1, 2, and 4. The first of these is the “Davis-Putnam procedure” which has been the subject of theoretical analysis, nowadays referred to as DP. The second choice is the one generally implemented, is usually called DPLL to refer to the four of us. It still seems to be useful. I might mention that I have received two awards based at least partly on this work and that I feel strongly that Hilary, at least, should have shared them.

  23. 23.

    Among other matters, we needed to find an exponential Diophantine definition for the relation:

    $$\begin{aligned} \frac{p}{q} = \sum _{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{r+ks}. \end{aligned}$$

    We didn’t go about it in the easiest way. We used the fact that

    $$ \sum _{k=1}^{n} \frac{1}{\alpha +k} = \frac{\varGamma ^\prime (\alpha + n +1)}{\varGamma (\alpha + n +1)} -\frac{\varGamma ^\prime (\alpha + 1)}{\varGamma (\alpha + 1)}, $$

    expanded \(\varGamma ^\prime / \varGamma \) by Taylor’s theorem, and used an estimate for \(\varGamma ^{\prime \prime }\) to deal with the remainder.

  24. 24.

    See [36].

  25. 25.

    AFOSR TR59-124.

  26. 26.

    Cf. [33].

  27. 27.

    See footnote 22.

  28. 28.

    [5, 29].

  29. 29.

    Here if \(\ell = \lnot R(c_1 , c_2 , \ldots , c_n)\) then it is understood that by \(\lnot \ell \), the literal \(R(c_1 , c_2 , \ldots ,c_n)\) is meant.

  30. 30.

    It was J.A. Robinson’s key insight that a theorem-proving procedure for first order logic could be based on not merely finding complementary literals by unification , but also then eliminating them—what he called “resolution”—that revolutionized the field [42]. Anyone interested in tracing the history might notice that whereas Robinson’s [42] does not refer to my [4], his earlier [41] does and in its content clearly shows its influence.

  31. 31.

    The example worked out in [4] shows unification in action.

  32. 32.

    [6].

  33. 33.

    [8].

  34. 34.

    [9, 10].

  35. 35.

    [35].

  36. 36.

    Actually, as I remember it, we worked on that article and the one on Hilbert’s tenth problem for which we received the Chauvenet prize pretty much at the same time. The one on nonstandard analysis appeared in 1972 [25], a year before the prize-winning article.

  37. 37.

    [12].

  38. 38.

    [31, 32].

  39. 39.

    [16,17,18,19,20,21].

  40. 40.

    [38].

  41. 41.

    These fellowships are administered by the CIES, the same office that manages Fullbright awards.

References

  1. Davis, M. (1956). A note on universal turing machines. Automata Studies. In C.E. Shannon & J. McCarthy (Eds.), Annals of Mathematics Studies (pp. 167–175). Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis, M. (1957). The definition of universal turing machine. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 8, 1125–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Davis, M. (1958). Computability and unsolvability. New York: McGraw-Hill. (Reprinted with an additional appendix, Dover 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Davis, M. (1963). Eliminating the irrelevant from mechanical proofs. Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, 15, 15–30. (Reprinted from [43], pp. 315–330).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, M. (1963). Extensions and corollaries of recent work on Hilbert’s tenth problem. Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 7, 246–250.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davis, M. (Ed.). (1965). The undecidable. Raven Press. (Reprinted from Dover 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M. (1967). First course in functional analysis. Gordon and Breach. (Reprinted from Dover 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, M. (1968). One equation to rule them all. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Sec., II(30), 766–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, M. (1971). An explicit Diophantine definition of the exponential function. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 24, 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis, M. (1972). On the number of solutions of Diophantine equations. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 35, 552–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis, M. (1973). Hilbert’s tenth problem is unsolvable. American Mathematical Monthly, 80, 233–269. (Reprinted as an appendix to the Dover edition of [3]).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Davis, M. (1977). Applied nonstandard analysis. Interscience-Wiley. (Reprinted from Dover 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, M. (1977). A relativity principle in quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 16, 867–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Davis, M. (1980). The mathematics of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Davis, M. (1981). Obvious logical inferences. In Proceedings of the Seventh Joint International Congress on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 530–531).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, M. (1982). Why Gödel didn’t have Church’s thesis. Information and Control, 54, 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davis, M. (1983). The prehistory and early history of automated deduction. In J. Siekmann & G. Wrightson (Eds.), Automation of reasoning (Vol. 1, pp. 1–28). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davis, M. (1987). Mathematical logic and the origin of modern computers. Studies in the History of Mathematics, pp. 137–165. Mathematical Association of America. (Reprinted from The universal turing machine—a half-century survey, pp. 149–174, by R. Herken, Ed., 1988, Hamburg, Berlin: Verlag Kemmerer & Unverzagt, Oxford University Press.)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Davis, M. (1988). Influences of mathematical logic on computer science. In R. Herken (Ed.), The universal turing machine–a half-century survey (pp. 315–326). Hamburg, Berlin: Verlag Kemmerer & Unverzagt, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davis, M. (1989). Emil post’s contributions to computer science. In Proceedings Fourth Annual Symposium (Ed.), on Logic in Computer Science (pp. 134–136). Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davis, M. (1995). American logic in the 1920s. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 1, 273–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Davis, M. (1999). From logic to computer science and back. In C. S. Calude (Ed.), People and ideas in theoretical computer science (pp. 53–85). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Davis, M. (2000). The universal computer: The road from Leibniz to Turing. W.W. Norton. Turing Centenary Edition, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, M. (2001). Engines of logic: Mathematicians and the origin of the computer. W.W. Norton. [Paperpack edition of The Universal Computer]

    Google Scholar 

  25. Davis, M., & Hersh, R. (1972). Nonstandard analysis. Scientific American, 226, 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis, M., & Hersh, R. (1973). Hilbert’s tenth problem. Scientific American, 229, 84–91 (Reprinted in J.C. Abbott (Ed.), The Chauvenet papers , 2, 555–571. Math. Assoc. America, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1958). Reductions of Hilbert’s tenth problem. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 23, 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1960). A computing procedure for quantification theory. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 7, 201–215. (Reprinted from [43], pp. 125–139).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Davis, M., & Putnam, H. (1963). Diophantine sets over polynomial rings. Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 7, 251–255.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Davis, M., & Weyuker, E. J. (1983). Computability, complexity, and languages. Second edition with Ron Sigal: Academic Press. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Davis, M., & Weyuker, E. J. (1983). A formal notion of program-based test data adequacy. Information and Control, 56, 52–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Davis, M., & Weyuker, E. J. (1988). Metric space based test data adequacy criteria. The Computer Journal, 31, 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Davis, M., Putnam, H., & Robinson, J. (1961). The decision problem for exponential Diophantine equations. Annals of Mathematics, 74, 425–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 5, 394–397. (Reprinted from [43], pp. 267–270).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Davis, M., Matijasevic, Y., & Robinson, J. (1976). Hilbert’s tenth problem: Diophantine equations: positive aspects of a negative solution. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 28, 323–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Green, B., & Tao, T. (2008). The primes contain arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. Annals of Mathematics, 167, 481–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kleene, S. C. (1943). Recursive predicates and quantifiers. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 53, 41–73. (Reprinted from [11], pp. 254–287).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Post, E. L. (1994). Solvability, provability, definability: The collected works of Emil L. Post ed. by M. Davis with a biographical introduction. Boston, Basel and Berlin: Birkhäuser

    Google Scholar 

  39. Prawitz, D. (1960). An improved proof procedure. (Reprinted from [43] with an additional comment by the author, pp. 162–201).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Reid, C. (1996). Julia: A life in mathematics. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Robinson, J. A. (1963). Theorem proving on the computer. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 10. (Reprinted from [43], pp. 372–383).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Robinson, J. A. (1965). A machine-oriented logic based on the resolution principle. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 12. (Reprinted from [43], pp. 397–415).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Siekmann, J., & Wrightson, G. (Eds.). (1983). Automation of reasoning 1: Classical papers on computational logic 1957–1966. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Davis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davis, M. (2016). My Life as a Logician. In: Omodeo, E., Policriti, A. (eds) Martin Davis on Computability, Computational Logic, and Mathematical Foundations. Outstanding Contributions to Logic, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41842-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics