You’re getting hit on a bunch of different things here, but I’d like to focus on two: it's an absolute hodge-podge of theorem/proofs/results/techniques with

You’re getting hit on a bunch of different things here, but I’d like to focus on two: it's an absolute hodge-podge of theorem/proofs/results/techniques with no unifying theme other than "CALCULUS". I mean, yes…? Maybe I’m a terrible programmer but I’ve never applied calculus to my work in any real way. A book that’s just “calculus applications for software design” seems quite useful, and quite unrelated to teaching “math” in a direct way. and it's all fine and healthy and gratifying for you and yourself alone. but i don't think i'd ever imagine to myself "well hmm my organization of these topics is going to be useful for other people i should put it out there for the world to see". but that's just me. Doesn’t this apply to all books of any kind? How do you know what if you can write a book before you try? I feel like “transcribe papers with a spin on them” is a perfect description of Russel and Norvig’s AI book, and many find it valuable. Is this just a math-specific criticism? Either way, thanks for the very interested contrarian comment! You’re well spoken and I do love a discussion more than “wow this looks useful”, which is all I was prepared to give.