Date: Jan 12, 2013 4:51 PM
Author: Butch Malahide
Subject: Re: Division without the axiom of choice

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.