[guided]The proof has a clean three-part structure: a geometric translation (project $\to$ cone), an algebraic identification (Nullstellensatz), and a dimension bound (Krull). Tracking the role of each piece:
\textbf{Why pass to the cone?} Projective space $\mathbb{P}^n_k$ has dimension $n$, while its affine cone $\mathbb{A}^{n+1}_k$ has dimension $n+1$ — one more dimension. The extra dimension is exactly the scaling degree of freedom we quotient out to make $\mathbb{P}^n_k$. The Nullstellensatz, Krull's Height Theorem, and other commutative-algebra tools work cleanly in the affine ring $k[X_0, \ldots, X_n]$, not directly in the projective coordinate ring. So we lift the geometric question "is $V(F) \cap V(G)$ empty in $\mathbb{P}^n_k$?" to "is $V_{\mathrm{aff}}(F) \cap V_{\mathrm{aff}}(G) = \{0\}$ in $\mathbb{A}^{n+1}_k$?" — equivalent because the cone always contains the origin and otherwise consists of full lines through the origin.
\textbf{Why does the Nullstellensatz give us $\sqrt{(F, G)} = \mathfrak{m}_0$?} Hilbert's Nullstellensatz translates between geometry (vanishing loci $V(\cdot)$) and algebra (radical ideals $\sqrt{(\cdot)}$). Applied to $(F, G)$ with the affine vanishing locus equal to $\{0\}$, it states that the radical of $(F, G)$ is the ideal of the origin — and the ideal of the origin is exactly the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_0 = (X_0, \ldots, X_n)$. The hypothesis $k$ algebraically closed is essential here: without it, varieties may have fewer geometric points than the algebra suggests, and the Nullstellensatz can fail.
\textbf{Why is $\mathfrak{m}_0$ the unique minimal prime?} Since $\mathfrak{m}_0$ is itself prime, and the radical is the intersection of all primes containing $(F, G)$, having $\sqrt{(F, G)} = \mathfrak{m}_0$ means $\mathfrak{m}_0$ is contained in every prime containing $(F, G)$ — but $\mathfrak{m}_0$ is maximal, so the only prime containing it is itself. Hence $\mathfrak{m}_0$ is the only prime over $(F, G)$, in particular the unique minimal one.
\textbf{Why is the height of $\mathfrak{m}_0$ equal to $n+1$?} The ring $k[X_0, \ldots, X_n]$ has Krull dimension $n+1$ — a fact established by induction on the number of variables (the Krull dimension of $R[X]$ is $\dim R + 1$ when $R$ is a Noetherian ring of finite Krull dimension). The maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_0$ "sees" the entire dimension because the quotient by it is $k$, the smallest possible residue field. Concretely, the chain $(0) \subsetneq (X_0) \subsetneq (X_0, X_1) \subsetneq \cdots$ realises the height.
\textbf{The Krull Height Theorem inequality.} The theorem says that adding $r$ generators to an ideal can drop the codimension by at most $r$. A single non-zero-divisor cuts dimension by $1$ (this is the principal ideal theorem); $r$ elements cut dimension by at most $r$. Equality "minimal prime over $(f_1, \ldots, f_r)$ has height $r$" holds when the $f_i$ form a regular sequence (cut transversally), but the inequality $\leq r$ is unconditional. Two homogeneous polynomials in $\mathbb{P}^n_k$ for $n \geq 2$ would need to cut the cone down to dimension $0$ (the origin), which is height $n+1 \geq 3$, exceeding $r = 2$. Hence they cannot, and they must intersect non-trivially.
\textbf{The role of $n \geq 2$.} For $n = 1$, two homogeneous polynomials in $\mathbb{P}^1_k$ may indeed be disjoint: e.g. $F = X_0$ and $G = X_1$ have $V(F) \cap V(G) = \varnothing$ since this would require both coordinates to vanish, but $(0, 0)$ is not a valid point of $\mathbb{P}^1_k$. In that case the cone $V_{\mathrm{aff}}(F) \cap V_{\mathrm{aff}}(G) = \{0\} \subset \mathbb{A}^2_k$ has $\mathfrak{m}_0 = (X_0, X_1)$ of height $2$, exactly matching the bound from $r = 2$ generators — no contradiction. The strict inequality $n + 1 > 2$, equivalent to $n \geq 2$, is exactly when the bound is violated.[/guided]