[EoinB]

As a mathematics major, I find it encouraging to see non-mathematicians sing the praises of the subject. So I applaud that. But I think the author is overstating/slightly wrong about a few things, perhaps because her exposure to mathematics has been through the lens of physics.

Maybe a more humble rewording of some of her statements e.g., "Anyone that follows and completes this curriculum will walk away with the knowledge equivalent to an undergraduate degree in mathematics." would be helpful.

Her suggested curriculum doesn't include anything from Number Theory, which is a foundational part of an advanced mathematics education. It is also one of, if not the most, beautiful topics one can study in mathematics.

I find it odd to call out "Introduction to Proofs" as a topic in and of itself. Proofs aren't really a topic in the way analysis or number theory is. At advanced levels, devising theorems and theirs proofs is what mathematics is.