It doesn't sit with me well to see this being downvoted. I assume downvoters found it dismissive, but I do not read it that way.
I agree, at first it *is* surprising to see a Nobel laureate walk from the most-obvious-count-on-my-fingers-elementary-school-math all the way up to Euler's Formula, only to stop there without taking the very short step, done in the comment above, to land on Euler's Equation. After all, that is how I see it done most often.
The goal here is not to reproduce famous results. That would be the "we could bring forth this formula in two minutes or so, and be done with it" thing that is deliberately called out at the start. Instead, it is explained
> Every so often it is a great pleasure to look back to see what territory has been covered, and what the great map or plan of the whole thing is.
Seeing famous relations reduced to one another is probably enjoyable for you, and judging how many authors do it I think you've got a lot of good company. What is done here is different. It starts with things we all know as children and ends with a relationship between algebra and geometry, covering lots of mathematical apparatuses in between. It is notable that this is done without relying on the formality of landing on "famous results" at each step. That approach, combined with the easygoing language, is what I found most enjoyable about the writing.
I agree, at first it *is* surprising to see a Nobel laureate walk from the most-obvious-count-on-my-fingers-elementary-school-math all the way up to Euler's Formula, only to stop there without taking the very short step, done in the comment above, to land on Euler's Equation. After all, that is how I see it done most often.
The goal here is not to reproduce famous results. That would be the "we could bring forth this formula in two minutes or so, and be done with it" thing that is deliberately called out at the start. Instead, it is explained
> Every so often it is a great pleasure to look back to see what territory has been covered, and what the great map or plan of the whole thing is.
Seeing famous relations reduced to one another is probably enjoyable for you, and judging how many authors do it I think you've got a lot of good company. What is done here is different. It starts with things we all know as children and ends with a relationship between algebra and geometry, covering lots of mathematical apparatuses in between. It is notable that this is done without relying on the formality of landing on "famous results" at each step. That approach, combined with the easygoing language, is what I found most enjoyable about the writing.