>>12372376
>It's easier than first year mathematics textbooks assigned in any good analysis or algebra course.
ehh not really, intro analysis and algebra doesn't tend to be that great out in Europe, and in the US, you don't tend to do that until late sophomore year. You might just be confused by US pedagogy
>you're delusional if blah blah
This is the usual /sci/ fallacy of thinking anything related to combinatorics is simple because it requires less structure - it's not that simple, and anybody who's done any of the book unrelated to the classic shit (sorting, basic tree results, etc) knows this is true.
You're making fun of material about trees and sorting...stuff that's taught in the first two semesters in CS. When people do CLRS in 3rd year algorithms, they do the actually interesting results that come from many other parts of the book, or they do topics that require way more mathematical structure like sketching algorithms.
>By junior year you should be working through quite advanced material as a competent future mathematician
>looking towards first year graduate level texts
the overwhelming majority of people in math schools do not do more than what's expected. Granted, they are more motivated math students than CS students, but most people don't take anything more than the basic algebra and analysis classes - many do not do anything past the basics of BABY rudin or the first 4 chapters of artin.
Your post is pseud as fuck, and you have very little idea of what you're criticizing - only that the beginning chapters of the book are trivial, and that the rest seems easy because "waaaah it doesn't use scary notation."
There's plenty of CS out there that's mathematically nontrivial.