"∗John Conway collaborated on the research reported here, and has been listed as an author of this work since it was first distributed in 1994. But he has never

"∗John Conway collaborated on the research reported here, and has been listed as an author of this work since it was first distributed in 1994. But he has never approved of this exposition, which he regards as full of ‘fluff’" That's weird; I thought Conway was a big fan of fluff (and while the reader is enjoying the fluff, he sneakily introduces the highly non-trivial.) Edit: well the paper is fairly chatty, I guess that turns some people off (it can obscure the argument.)