Redfield's ability is evident in letters exchanged among Redfield, Percy MacMahon, and Sir Thomas Muir, following the publication of Redfield's paper in 1927. Apparently Redfield sent a copy of his paper to MacMahon. In reply, MacMahon expresses the view that Redfield has made a valuable contribution to the subject and goes on to mention a conjecture which he himself made in his recently delivered Rouse-Ball memorial lecture. He also says that it is probable that Redfield's work would lead to a proof of it. Such was the case: in a draft reply dated December 26, 1927, Redfield writes: MacMahon, who had failed to prove it himself and then put the matter before men at both Cambridge and Oxford "without effect", delightedly wrote to Redfield : MacMahon urged Redfield to publish his new results and also informed Muir about them. In a letter to Redfield dated December 31, 1931, Muir also encourages him to publish his verification "without waiting for MacMahon's executors" and suggests the Journal of the London Mathematical Society as an appropriate medium. As far as is known, Redfield did not follow up this suggestion, but the proof of MacMahon's conjecture was included in an unpublished manuscript which appears to be a sequel to the paper .
Redfield's contemporaries on him
A letter from Professor Cletus Oakley to Frank Harary, dated December 19, 1963, reads in part: Redfield's brother, Alfred, a marine biologist-oceanographer and former Associate Director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, wrote :
Publications
: This publication is based on a manuscript discovered in Redfield's legacy by his daughter. The correspondence found with the manuscript revealed that it had been submitted for publication in the American Journal of Mathematics on October 19, 1940 and was rejected by the editors in a brief letter of January 7, 1941. Redfield answered the objections of the referee in great detail ten days later and asked specific questions, but he never received a reply to his rebuttal. Apparently it was not subsequently resubmitted elsewhere. The significance of this paper is discussed in.
: This publication represents a typescript of a lecture delivered by Redfield in 1937. According to Lloyd, “The text of Redfield's lecture is very readable, and anyone wishing to study his work would be well advised to read the lecture before passing on to his 1927 and 1940 papers.”
