I don’t really understand what the post is trying to say or whom it is targeted at. But maybe that’s because I only skimmed it. It feels like a big brain dump of random notes rather than anything cohesive or particularly complete.

I found the frequent self-quotes odd and the self-congratulatory introduction more odd. An example of the lack of target audience would be the section “what are graphs?” It starts with a paragraph which seems to be for someone who has never heard of graphs (yet it doesn’t actually define what a graph is, but maybe that’s because there’s so much variety in what different things may be graphs). It also calls graphs “data structures” which I don’t think I would agree with. It’s then followed by a big list of links and then a paragraph referencing Kotlin∇ and talking about trees and such even though the previous paragraph seems to be for someone who doesn’t know what a graph is.

I found other sections weird. E.g. the author seems to think that it is important to treat a matrix as a function between vector spaces but somehow misses the main point (this function must be linear and the numbers in a matrix are in some sense unimportant because they are relative to some basis). Then there’s a section about raising matrices to a power except when you look at it you realise it’s actually a product of different matrices and actually the topic just changed halfway through the paragraph.

The “matrix multiplications” in the section on data flow graphs don’t make sense to me, even with the random extra rules given above (the third entry in S' the second row should be 5, but this causes the next row to not have the idempotence property the author wants). It also seems to be confusing matrices with manipulating random numbers in a grid.

I don’t want to be overly negative. There’s probably some good stuff in here but at the moment it just appears to be a dump of the author’s notes and thoughts.