There is no ‘royal road’ to geometry (1982)

For those who prefer the original format: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.utexas.edu&#x2F;users&#x2F;EWD&#x2F;ewd08xx&#x2F;EWD841.PDF" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cs.utexas.edu&#x2F;users&#x2F;EWD&#x2F;ewd08xx&#x2F;EWD841.PDF</a><p>Interesting surprise encountering Margaret Hamilton&#x27;s name in there.<p>My comment on pg&#x27;s <i>Succinctness is Power</i> echoes some of the things Dijkstra says in here, though I wasn&#x27;t talking about proof assistants, just a more informal notion of errors and problems: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;redund.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;redund.html</a>

I first came across this quote funnily by a book that is called The Royal Road to Algebraic Geometry.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;10.1007&#x2F;978-3-642-19225-8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;10.1007&#x2F;978-3-642-19225-8</a>