A number of readers have complained that when it comes to reading prut the secondary literature is of no use to them, or very little use. Do you think that's a fair characterization? Or if one wants to read something on proofs that's useful, where does one start? I didn't initially like the idea of some so called expert coming in between me and my perception of the book. And that was particularly true translating it. The easiest answer really, or the most sensible, is to dip in and out of the different writings on prust and see which writer you feel comfortable with. Some you'll hate and some you'll love.

Get the Snipd
podcast app

Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
App store bannerPlay store banner

AI-powered
podcast player

Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features

Discover
highlights

Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode

Save any
moment

Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways

Share
& Export

Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more

AI-powered
podcast player

Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features

Discover
highlights

Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode