On Jan 12, 2:40 am, pepste...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is a much clearer exposition than the Conway/Doyle one inwww.math.dartmouth.edu/~doyle/docs/three/three.pdfand I now completely understand the proof. It might be worthwhile submitting your argument for publication (I'm guessing that it's your proof or your exposition).
I'm glad you understand the proof now. I'm guessing that my equine exposition is goofy enough to be original. I'm guessing that the proof I posted is *not* new, but I wouldn't know; I haven't had time to study the Conway-Doyle proof yet (thanks for the reference), and I haven't seen any of the other proofs. Anyway, I don't think it's worthwhile to submit it for publication; it's a rather specialized result for which other proofs are available.