Anonymous at Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:40:01 UTC No. 16136022

>>16135967
kek. I like his book and it's clear he wanted the arguments to 'look like' what they'd look like in FA (where there is no determinant), but for most of the later big proofs he just uses minimal polynomials, which of course don't generalize either, and which are probably even less intuitive than determinants.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Apr 2024 03:53:38 UTC No. 16136902

>>16136022
>like his book
Why??