I didn't understand this part in this proof:

For me, we have to have the contrary $V(f,g)\subset V(g)$. Maybe the author made a mistake.
Thanks in advance.
I didn't understand this part in this proof:

For me, we have to have the contrary $V(f,g)\subset V(g)$. Maybe the author made a mistake.
Thanks in advance.
Generally, yes, you have $V(f,g) \subset V(f)$ and not $V(f) \subset V(f,g)$. But here, there is a special situation:
Let $g \in I(V(f))$.
That means that $g$ vanishes on $V(f)$, or $V(f) \subset V(g)$, and hence here you have $V(f,g) = V(f)$.