‘THE 25 GREATEST MATHEMATICIANS Robert L Brabenec Wheaton College It is very common to read in the mathematical literature that Archimedes, Newton, and Gauss were the three greatest mathematicians of history. Yet itis rare to read anywhere the reasons why these three are to be considered greater than such others as Euclid, Euler, Cauchy, or Riemann. Its also rare to see the list extended to the five, ten, or twenty-five greatest mathematicians. It is the purpose of this paper to consider making such lists, along with some criteria to consider in making a rank order among these individuals. ‘The idea of ranking is a familiar one in our world. Much interest is given to the Top Twenty lists in NCAA Division I football and basketball. Teachers regularly use a variety of criteria in order to rank students in their classes, and assign letter grades based on this ranking. Jeremy Gray in the title of a 1985 article in the Mathematical Intelligencer asked “Who would have received the Field medals in 1880?” He went on to evaluate the relative merits of the mathematicians under 40 years of age in 1880, and to predict how a Fields medal committee might have evaluated their potential and awarded the prizes. G.H. Hardy enjoyed the exercise of evaluating and ranking various iteme. In one article, he described about a dozen proofs for the result that /$° 82 da ~ 5 and developed a numerical system for ranking the proofs based on their elegance and avoidance of difficult calculations. In spite of such examples, there seems to have been a disinterest or distrust in trying to rank mathematicians, based on doubts about both the possibility and the value of such an exercise. But in order to identify and rank the top 25 mathematicians, one must become familiar with about 40 or 50 mathematicians along with their main works and their merits. The acquisition of such knowledge is certainly valuable in itself, whether or not a definitive conclusion is ever reached about the ranking. I have found that one cau learn about the life and work of a mathematician better by comparing and contrasting them with the lives and works of other mathematicians. One of the most interesting attempts to determine the 25 greatest mathematicians occurred. in the mid 1930s. William Marshall Bullitt, who was a well-known and influential lawyer in the Louisville, Kentucky area, graduated from Princeton University in 1894 with a major in mathe- matics. He maintained a strong interest as an amateur in mathematics throughout his life with active memberships in the AMS and MAA organizations and frequent visits and contacts with leading mathematicians and scientists of his day, such as Oswald Veblen at Princeton, Harlow Shapley at Harvard, G.H. Hardy from Cambridge and John von Neumann and Albert Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study. After reading H.W. Turnbull’s book The Great Mathe- ‘maticians, he decided to collect the “frst edition of the greatest work of each of the twenty-five greatest mathematicians.” Based on his own knowledge, he made a tenative list of the twenty-five greatest mathematicians and sent it in 1937 to a number of his mathematical contacts, asking for revisions, and their suggestions of the greatest work of each one. His legal background led him to think of these men as a jury who collectively could agree on a reasonable list. With a few exceptions, much enthusiasm and encouragement was provided to Mr. Bullitt and his search was underway. By the time his collecting days were over in the early 1950s, he had obtained 370 original documents written by 60 outstanding mathematicians and scientists. 164Delegates at the AMS/MAA joint meetings held in January 1990 in Louisville, Kentucky were invited to see a display of this collection of rare books and papers which were given to the Uni- versity of Louisville library in the years following Mr. Bullitt’s death. Those who took advantage of this opportunity were able to examine such treasures as a 1482 copy of Budlid’s Elements printed in Venice, a 1544 copy of Archimedes Opera printed in Basel, a 1543 Nuremburg copy of Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, a 1679 Toulouse copy of Fermat's Varia Opera Mathematica, and a 1687 first edition of Newton’s Principia, being a presentation copy to Lord Halifax and containing some corrections in Newton’s own writing. Let's look next at the jury of seven that responded to Bullitt’s 1937 letter by supplying their list of the 25 greatest mathematicians. Raymond Clare Archibald from Brown University wrote a brief outline on the history of mathematics that was geared especially to teachers of mathematics. Eric ‘Temple Bell from the California Institute of ‘Technology had just published his Men of Mathematics in 1937, which was in a sense his list of 31 great mathematicians, excluding those from the Greek period. In his Preface, he gave two criteria for his choice of which mathematicians to include in his book. The first was the importance for modern mathematics of a man’s work. ‘The second was the human appeal of the man’s life and character. G.H. Hardy had spent the 1936-37 year at Princeton, exchanging positions with Oswald Veblen who went to Cambridge. He had met Mr. Bullitt during this time, and sent his list of 25 mathematicians after returning to England. Harald Bohr, the mathematician who was the brother of the physicist Niels Bohr, was visiting with Hardy at the thme, and they collaborated on thelr Uist. Thelzs was the only one divided into categories; the top three, the rest of the top ten, and the bottom 15. (See Appendix 1 for Hardy and Bohr’s list of the 25 greatest mathematicians.) Edmund Taylor Whittaker was at the University of Edinburgh and is the one of Whittaker and Watson fame, He wrote his Modern Analysis in 1902 and Watson joined him for the 1915 revision. He was to serve as President of the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1958 in Edinburgh, but he died in 1956. He was very interested in religion all his life, and wrote about the relationship of theology and physics. John von Neumann was the only one of the seven who was born in the twentieth century. He sent his list from Budapest, although he was associated with the Institute for Advanced Studies at this time. Along with Hardy, he should be considered on any list of greatest mathematicians from the 20th century. He made the honest comment that he made his choices “corresponding to my personal taste rather than to objective criteria.” Oswald Veblen was at Princeton, and became the spokeman for American mathematics after the death of George Birkhoff in 1944. Veblen served as President of the International Congress that was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1950, which was the first one held since the one in Oslo in 1936. Herbert Westren Turnbull was the mathematician at the University of St. Andrews who first interested Bullitt in the greatest mathematicians project. It is interesting that the list in his book The Great Mathematicians is quite different from the list of names that he submitted to Bullitt in 1937. He said that the ranking must “take into account both mathematical insight and their actual productivity, together with the influence exerted.” He felt that we should “include also certain names of those who showed the highest genius, but did not produce so much.” (See Appendix 2 for a composite of the lists provided by these 7 individuals.) Not everyone is supportive of this task to rank the greatest mathematicians. Stuart Holling. dale in his book Makers of Mathematics states that “it is manifestly foolish to attempt to rank the greatest mathematicians in order of merit.” In his 1936 book Study of the History of Mathe- ‘matics, George Sarton, the historian of science at Harvard University, adds that “a few men, like Gauss, tower above all their contemporaries like giants, but with regard to the other distinguished 165166 mathematicians, it is impossible to determine their relative rank, as this would imply quantitative measurements of mathematical genius, which are quite inconceivable.” But is mathematical genius the only criterion that should be used in a ranking of mathemati- cians? Otto Blumenthal, the first doctoral student of David Hilbert, suggested that there are at least two different abilities which should be considered in any evaluative process. Constance Reid contains his quote in her book Hilbert, “In the analysis of mathematical talent one has to differentiate between the ability to create new concepts that generate new types of thought structures and the gift for sensing deeper connections and underlying unity . . . Insofar as the creation of new ideas is concerned, I would place Minkowski higher (than Hilbert), and of the classical great ones, Gauss, Galois, and Riemann. But when it comes to penetrating insight, only a few of the very greatest were the equal of Hilbert.” Tam reminded of the importance of a good definition, as illustrated by Cantor’s work with infinite sets. The key was to define what was meant by equivalent sets, and then to apply this definition to several specific sets, before establishing the general theory of cardinal and ordinal numbers, What is needed in our case is a definition of an inequality A > B to mean that mathematician A is to be ranked higher than mathematician B. It seems that there are several quantitative and qualitative criteria which need to be taken into account. On the quantitative side, we can measure the length of one’s career, the amount of writings, the number of fields covered, and the number of direct influences on others. On the qualitative side, we can measure the creative skills of the person, whether new fields were begun or various points of view were unified, and whether mathematics is different today as a result of his work. When considering the amount of writings, the bounds are far apart, with Galois’s 61 brief pages at one extreme and Euler’s 90 volumes at the other. The length of career is somewhat related, although Dedekind had a very long career, but wrote comparatively little. ‘The same could be said to a lesser extent of Fourier and Lobatchevsky. By number of areas covered, we could include not only such traditional categories as algebra, geometry, and analysis, but also those of pure versus applied mathematics, and areas outside the usual scope, such as physics, astronomy, philosophy, and logic. Gauss, of course, was widely represented, while Archimedes and Galois were much more narrowly focused. ‘The amount of influence could be measured by a teacher-student relationship, or through the organization of a journal (such as Liouville or Klein) or through the development of a school of mathematics (such as Weierstrass at Berlin or Hilbert at Gottingen). In some cases, such as Newton, the influence was purposely limited by the mathematician himself. In other cases, it was limited by geography, such as with Lobachevsky at the University of Kazan or Bolyai in Hungary. Different kinds of criteria are introduced on the qualitative side. One i the creative touch. Did this person create a whole new area of study, as did Galois and Cantor? Or was a new way of looking at things presented, such as with Klein’s Erlanger Program or Weierstrass’s arithme- tization of analysis program? ‘The uniqueness idea asks whether the creator was alone with his insights, or whether others would have made the same discovery at about the same time. The latter seems to be the case when considering the discovery of calculus about 1670 or the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry in the 1820s, ‘The former seems to be the case with Galois’s discovery of solvability of equations by radicals, as it took 12 years before Liouville published Galois's lim. ited writings in his journal, and another 20 years before any of his ideas appeared in the writings of others. Under endurance of ideas, we distinguish between topics that fade after a period of widespread attention and those that endure and expand with time. Fluxions and quaternions are examples of topics that have not endured, while solvability questions, Fermat's Theorem, limits,and infinite set theory are examples of enduring topics. ‘The question remains as to the best way to use the above criteria. One possibility is to assign numerical values or weights to each of the items in order to come up with a final number for each mathematician. Oswald Veblen made the comment that ‘the whole thing makes me feel how weak I am on the history of science. I fear that most of my contemporaries are almost equally deficient, which is regrettable. In order to provide fodder for debate, I have ventured to rank the 4 top mathematicians from each of five time periods (See Appendix 3). The rest of this paper contains various arguments to support this ranking. I expect that I will feel differently about my choices in a few years time. ‘The strong consensus is that Archimedes was the greatest mathematician of antiquity. There is an aura of greatness that has grown up around this legendary character and his many exploits. Certainly he possessed great creative powers as demonstrated in his discovery of area and volume formulas. On the other hand, Euclid seemed to develop work in more areas of mathematics, and his Blements has influenced more mathematicians and mathematics than any other work. Even if all of its contents are not due to Euclid, he was the one who did the axiomatic organization of this material. It is difficult to accurately evaluate the contributions and abilities of these Greek mathematicians, because we know so little about them, and they had very little mathematical heritage on which to build their work. ‘The seventeenth century has been called the century of genius when the rebirth of the Renais- sance finally blossomed in mathematics — it had occurred earlier in art and science. Mathematics was really not a separate discipline at this time, so the individuals making these discoveries in mathematics were also skilled in astronomy, philosophy, law, theology, literature, logic, and physics. As we try to sort through the many names of this period after the relative paucity in previous centuries, we look for more than one or two discoveries before giving a high ranking to ‘an individual. The higher levels belong to those who began a new field of mathematics, such as analytic geometry, probability, number theory, calculus, or who discovered a unified way of looking at a collection of isolated results. ‘Newton is usually considered to be one of the three greatest, if not the greatest, mathematicians of all time, along with Gauss and Archimedes. Usually supporting evidence is not provided with such astatement. Let's look at the evidence. For one thing, Newton is credited with the discovery of the calculus. However, it undoubtedly would have been discovered at about the same time without Newton's help. Leibnis is now usually considered as an independent discoverer, and if not, others such as Barrow and Gregory were close. In one sense, Newton even played a negative role, by using a poor notation and continuing a controversy that hampered British analysis for more than a century. Certainly Newton’s writings on the subject are rather minimal and very late in being published. Even in his one great writing, the Principia, the topic was physics, not mathematics, and the method used was geometry and not calculus. Someone said that Newton concentrated his mathematical efforts into two 18 month periods of incredible intensity, but he has not much else to show from his long lifetime. He was not a good teacher, he reluctantly communicated with others, and he published relatively little in mathematics. At the beginning of hie recent collection of the mathematical worke of Newton, Derck Whitecide ead, For two and a half centuries Newton’s claim to scientific immortality has rested, and rightly so, not on his mathematical discoveries, but on the explanation of the manifold 167168, properties of the observable world which he presented in his master works Principia and Optics. And Michael Mahoney, « bivgiaphe: of Fenmat wiiting in the Eucyelopedia Diitauuivs, said, “Whatever the revolutionary influence of the Principia, mathematics would have looked much the same if Newton had never existed. In that endeavour, he belonged to a community, and he was far from indispensable.” E.T. Bell in his Men of Mathematics commented that “Fermat was at least Newton’s equal as a pure mathematician ... Newton appears to have regarded his mathematics principally as an instrument for scientific exploration.” So what is the case for Fermat? As a true amateur, he had no motivation to make a place for himself, so he wrote no books and few papers, with his letters to friends compnsing the record ot most ot his work. We think of his pioneering work in number theory, probability, analytic geometry, and the finding of tangents to curves. Fermat was, the fountain of ideas that would motivate later mathematicians in their work. Fermat and Pascal laid the early basis for the theory of probability. In analytic geometry, Fermat and Descartes gave simultaneous, yet independent, developments of the blending of algebra and geometry into analytic geometry. ‘This would be an essential ingredient to precede the discovery of the calculus. Fermat’s treatment of maxima and minima of curves along with some creative approaches to area calculations made him a significant forerunner in the development of calculus. In a letter discovered only in 1934, Newton credits his early ideas about calculus to “Fermat's way of drawing, tangents.” Part of Fermat's uniqueness was his work in number theory, which was not surpassed until the work of Euler, Legendre, and Gauss a century and more later, and which is still in vogue at the close of the twentieth century. What might he have accomplished if he had been associated with a university, with colleagues to prod him and offer dialogue, and students to encourage formulation and organization of his ideas into print? G.H, Hardy ranked Leibnis in his top 25 on the basis of “general greatness,” rather than for his specific contributions to mathematics. Yet he seemed to be the complement of Newton, having strength in the areas of Newton's weakness. For one, Leibnis encouraged others to develop his work and notation and to immediately improve it. Also Leibniz was interested in publishing his ideas as soon as possible, and founded the Acta Eruditorum journal and the Berlin Academy of Sciences. The fact that his income was provided by a ruler who apparently knew little and cared less about Leibnis’s scientific interests and work, and whose assignment of tedious tasks, such as geneological work, wasted a brilliant mind, People like Leibniz and George Boole must have their ratings go up if they are evaluated in 1995 instead of 1937, because of the intervening development and importance of the computer and logical processt Descartes’s ranking is somewhat shaky. It would be one thing if he were the sole creator of analytic geometry, but he shared this with Fermat, and there is a difference of opinion on who did this topic better. Whiteside relates that Newton himself later spoke of Descartes’ Geometrie as his “eye opener”. His general philosophical work would compare favorably with that of Leibniz, Fermat, Leibniz, Newton, and Descartes all spent large portions of their time on non-mathematical, even non-scientific, pursuits. ‘There probably would be little disagreement with the statement that Euler and Lagrange were the dominant mathematicians of the eighteenth century, although there would be some disagreement about who was greater. Actually Lagrange lived 13 years into the next century, but the bulk of his work was done before 1800. Laplace also would be recognized for his great work in celestial mechanics and for his work in probability.Euler's credentials must be his prolific writing, far more that his closest rival, who was probably Cauchy, While he was never a teacher, his expository skills in his writings presented a notation and style that are still widely used and emulated. His long career at the academies of St. Petersburg and Berlin gave credibility to both institutions. While he did not create new branches of mathematics, he had many creative insights into ways to solve interesting problems. Perhaps ‘the low level of rigor in his day contributed to his freedom to think creatively and to try a wide range of techniques in areas where theoretically they should not be used. Lagrange, like Euler, spent his life in more than one country and developed early a widespread reputation. His 1788 book on analytical mechanics is probably his best known, but his published works fill 14 volumes. Significant as this is, it only makes Euler’s approximately 90 volumes all the more remarkable. Like Euler, Lagrange was active and successful in prize competitions. ‘While Euler was dominant in analysis and secondarily in number theory, Lagrange’s work was more in applied mathematics, although he had interest in number theory and fundamental ideas of calculus. ‘The nineteenth century has so many outstanding mathematicians and new topics that we will divide it in half. In the first half of the nineteenth century, there are probably four names that should be considered based on the significance of their work as well as the quantity of it - these are Gauss, Cauchy, Dirichlet, and Jacobi. Then there are several others who are known for their brilliance in making a significant new discovery, but who had a relatively short career, or else who wrote very little. This group consists of Abel, Galois, Lobachevsky, Boole, and Bolyai. Fourier and Hamilton also fit into this grouping, although their lives and writings are somewhat more lengthy. Galois is of course at an extreme - dead at age 20, no published papers, no contacts with other mathematicians, no degree, and yet his name is well-known more than 150 years after his death. He did submit at least two papers to the French Academy, but they were lost and so are ‘of no significance. The night before his death, he wrote a letter to a friend Chevalier containing glimpses of his ideas. Fourteen years later, Liouville published this in his journal and in 20 more ‘years, they were first included in an algebra text. This delay suggests that without Galois’s ideas ‘on the solution of equations by radicals, no one else was going to come up with similar ideas on their own for a long time. Abel's life was a little longer (by 6 years) than Galois's, and he was able to publish some papers in Crelle’s Journal, which spread his name to at least part of the mathematics community. However, poverty and illness dogged his steps, and he never did receive a university position with opportunity to carry out his research in a conducive setting. It seems that his genius was somewhat below that of Galois, and there were othere working on the eame topics of interest Ruffini on the quintic equation, Jacobi on elliptic integrals, and Cauchy on the convergence of series. Hence mathematics without Abel would likely look much the same, although not everyone would agree with this. Clearly the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry has changed the nature of modern mathe- matics more than any other discovery. While many had pioneering thoughts in this field, it was a long time before someone could enunciate the important concept. This was very similar to the development of the calculus. Gauss seemed to be the first to think of the crucial idea, but he hhept quiet abuut it, aud auight wever have spoken about it, but probably would leave it behind in his papers for others to see. It was left to Bolyai and Lobachevsky to put things into writing, but their remoteness from mainstream mathematical circles undoubtedly minimized their effect on the thoughts of others. It would take 30 years and more before the work of Riemann, Bel- 169170 trami, and Hilbert gave credibility to the topic of non-Euclidean geometry. It is difficult to rate Bolyai and Lobachevsky very highly since this was the only area they worked in of significance, and Bolyai did not write additional mathematics beyond one brief paper. If Bolyai had never lived, things would probably develop in the same way and in about the same time frame. If Lobachevsky had not lived, the result is not as certain. One would need to find out how much someone like Riemann depended on the influence of Gauss, Bolyai, or Lobachevsky, for his work on the foundations of geometry. As mentioned earlier, we would probably rank Boole higher today than would have been done in the 1930s because of the recent significant influx of logic and Boolean algebra into the field of mathematics, and even more in computer science. Hamilton's work in complex variables and optics is largely ignored today and we think of him mainly for his work on quaternions. He had the right idea but the wrong approach, although the important concepts of non-commutative multiplication and vector analysis were imbedded in his discovery. If Hamilton had not lived, who else would have discovered these things? Was Grassmann one who was on to the same ideas? ‘Trigonometric series have had a long and significant role in the historical development of analysis. While the Bernoullis and Euler recognized their importance in the vibrating string problem, it seems that Fourier was the one who pulled the theory together. And he did it at a crucial time, when mathematics needed something to infuse it with new energy and direction, after the mine of calculus results and applications was nearly exhausted, at least in the opinion of D’Alembert and Lagrange. Fourier series became a topic of new importance in the 19th century and many worked with it or used it as a stepping stone to new levels. ‘The second half of the nineteenth century is going to be dominated by German mathemati- cians. ‘The English will reappear on the scene in algebra with many solid contributors, such as Boole, Hamilton, Cayley, and Sylvester, but they will not challenge for the top ranks. Italy also will have strength with Beltrami, Betti, Briosche, and Peano. France will have successors, to Cauchy in the form of Hermite, Hadamard, Poincare, and Jordan, but the early glory of the Paris Academy and the Ecole Polytechnique is no longer so bright. In Germany, the story is different. Strong schools are present at Berlin, Kénigsberg, and Géttingen, with lesser ones at Halle, Leipzig, Heidelberg, Breslau, Munich, Erlangen, and Bonn. And the list of names seems almost endless ~ Jacobi, Dirichlet, Weierstrass, Riemann, Kummer, Dedekind, Kronecker, Klein, Hilbert, Frege, Schwarz, Minkowski, Hurwitz, Lindemann, Cantor, Gordan, Fuchs, Clebsch, and Heine. ‘The decision for ranking is becoming more difficult. ‘There are none as Galois and Abel, who died so prematurely. Riemann is perhaps the closest, but he lived to age 39. There are no individuals hidden with great ideas away from the mainstream, ouch as Bolyai, Lobachevsky, and Bolzano in earlier years. Most people are at universities and have ready access to the new journals, so ideas flow much more quickly and widely. As you can see (Appendix 3), I have chosen 4 Germans for my list. What is the evidence for these choices, and why have I downgraded the alternatives? If I look at the scorecard provided by “the seven”, I need to explain why Poincare is not on the list and why Klein is. Part of the reason is based on personal preferences. I happen to value the role that Klein played in establishing a strong school at Géttingen which surpassed the one at Berlin, the contribution of the unification role in geometry provided by his Erlanger Program, and the way Klein worked with others to establish valuable vehicles for communication, such as the Entwicklung fur Mathematical Wissenschaften and the Mathematischen Annalen. By contrast, Poincare, though admittedly brilliant, seemed to be much more of a loner, although he seemed to be held in awe by the mathematical community at the time of his death in 1912.It was interesting to me that there was no unanimity on the list of names after 1850, and only 3 names from this time period were listed by at least five of the seven, in contrast to all the other time periods when there were less names available (See Appendix 2). Perhaps it does get more difficult to make good choices as we move closer to the modern time period. How would we like the task of ranking the mathematicians of the 20th century? Have you ever wished that you could have been one of these great mathematicians of history, ‘or could solve one of the famous unsolved problems? Which one would you choose to be? It seems to be part of human nature to strive for greatness in some form that is recognizable to ‘many. The idea occurs often in scripture, and even there, the necessary criteria for greatness is ‘usually not described. I would like to conclude by considering 4 short passages from the gospels. In John 4:12, the woman of Samaria who met Christ at Jacob’s well asked Him this question. ‘Where do you get that living water. You are not greater than our father Jacob, are you? Jn Matthew 11:11, Christ made the following statement about John the Baptist. Among those born of women, there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist. ‘At an earlier time, John made the following statement about Christ. ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. And finally in Luke 9:46 is recorded the statement concerning the disciples that an argument arose among them as to which of them might be the greatest. ‘We do not know the basis which each disciple was using to support his claim. But we do know what Christ's answer was to them. “He who is least among you, this is the one who is great.” So we are left with a rather strange criteria for greatness in the spiritual realm-very different from the ones we just considered in our ranking of mathematicians. It seems that our question of the measure of greatness, while interesting, is an elusive one wherever we encounter it. I do believe that the experience of trying to rank the mathematicians is interesting, instructive, and helpful, even if a final satisfactory answer is not attained. I recommend it to you. 17172 areoulog ssesiole\, zoyueD puppeped yajaouog Aysaayoeqo] reEpUIG Jarmo aoyfdey] TmMouseg zuqie] soyreosaq snxopny PIpng sntuorjody Appendix 1 uueUaRy store Pav Aypnep asueise] zeny jeurray S006T ssne5 S008T S00ZT IST s,Aprey U0}. MeN, S009T sopaumnpry waae Eircys| a pupppeqd Sse}SIaIaM faked uueuraRy 00s!-osel Joye areoulog AJsAaypeqoy] ssnes) yeLMoy tqooe{ store Aypned OS8L-0081 PqV asueise] simoureg aoydey sen 0081-002 u0jMaN, sayeosaq zruqie] yeuay OOZL-0091 prpnq snxopny snquoyjody snqueydorq sepaunpry a3aYuD Sealy) 1nq IV om) 3g IV euo 3nq |IV S3S}] 12 UO poled Appendix 2174 iqooe areoulog qaLMNoy puppeped ajoog, Aayhea, Pay snqueydorq | seyeurayty uoynepy Uppy Aysaaypeqol | ynoureg seyreosaq] | snquorjody we SSesiaIa\ stoje aoydey zraqia'y] snxopng pie soyurZ Aypnes a8uei8e] u0jmMaN prpng puz uuu ssney wang yeullay sapaumnpry 3ST 006T-0S8T OS8T-008T OO8T-O0ZT 00ZT-009T MaaaD Appendix 3