> since this aims at being a "foundations" book, the style of writing seems to miss the mark "Foundations" in the mathematical jargon doesn't mean "introductio

> since this aims at being a "foundations" book, the style of writing seems to miss the mark "Foundations" in the mathematical jargon doesn't mean "introduction to". It's an illustration of several foundational topic in data science, which is markedly different from an introduction to the field. E.g. "foundations of computer science" is not "CS 101". In this sense (and in this sense only) I don't think it misses the mark. I disagree on the verbosity, statements have full proofs but that's expected from a "foundations" book. CLRS is waaaay more verbose, for instance. I agree that I don't see a strong connection or logical path in the selection of topics. Edit: Also agree about the comments. Wow this thread is bad. The "fuck math" crowd must have awakened.