To me basics mean that if you study this entire book you won’t be able to understand ML otherwise it would say comprehensive. Furthermore the math presented in this book are all taught in 1st year courses for most CS programs I’ve encountered.
> Keep in mind it can take an hour, and sometimes way more, to really absorb a single page of a math.
Learning is a personal experience and happens at differing rates for different people. While I do agree this book is rather terse and would serve as a good reference any added explanations around the proofs would force a split to multiple publications so I can see why the authors chose to present it in the way they did.
Overall I have found this text easy to digest and well formulated and thank the authors and poster.
If that's your level, it might reasonably be called "basic."
For everyone else - no.
From what I see this book is much more complete than a first year course, or even the whole curriculum of a classical CS education.
I'm quite familiar with math, but I never encountered wavelet theory, Gauss-Seidel method, Rayleigh-Ritz theorem, and many more. My knowledge about other subjects such as Hermitian spaces, quaternions, finite elements is quite superficial.
And I've only listed elements of Part I.
A lot of this is year 2 (and 3!) even in engineering physics.