[hintymad]

> It’s because there ain’t no way to re-write mathematical analysis as a “list”. When you do write a list, you are promising that you’ve figured out a way to cover the subject in that way without losing essential detail.

I'm not sure this works out for a math textbook, or any book at all. We build our understanding and knowledge by layering up abstractions, and the abstractions form a graph. A linear list to cover all the preqreq will be tedious and repetitive, to say the least.

[LAC-Tech]

I always felt math material would lend itself well to a directed acyclic graph of topics/information. It's something I tend to do informally - look at an equation I need to understand, then go backwards to the pre-requisites until things are explained in terms of things I'm already familiar with.

[layer8]

I wish Wikipedia was acyclic for math topics.