While I understand that the author has good intentions, I strongly disagree with the general idea of this post, which is that anyone can learn math through an almost entirely analysis-focused curriculum while other topics like topology, game theory, set theory, etc. are presented as advanced and graduate-level. This is practically equivalent to saying that anyone can learn history, and they should learn all about British history in undergrad, and then graduate-level courses might teach you more about the history of South America.

Some of my thoughts (mostly drawn from personal experience, feel free to disagree):

1. IMO "learning math" is really about learning how to recognize patterns and how to generalize those patterns into useful abstractions (sometimes an infinite tower of such abstractions!). So it really doesn't matter if one does abstract algebra or linear algebra or combinatorics or number theory or 2D geometry or whatnot at the beginning. Any foundational course in any branch of mathematics, or any book on proofs, will fulfill this need. People learn in different ways and have affinities for different topics, so some subjects will be easier and/or more interesting for them, so aspiring mathematicians should start with a topic they're at least initially entertained by. If you don't know where to start, one fun (for me) topic is the game of Nim; other combinatorics topics are also elementary and entertaining to think about. I'm fairly sure that if I had to take this suggested curriculum as an undergraduate, I would have picked a different major entirely, I personally find analysis quite difficult :(

2. One's first foray into a topic should be a one-semester course, not a textbook. Lecture notes for many courses are freely available online also, so you don't have to pirate the books you want if you aren't willing to pay $100 :P The reason is this: courses are curated by a mathematician to teach students the basics of a topic in one semester, so they will better highlight what you need to know, like important theorems, and have a more careful selection of problems. If you're confused, you can read the relevant textbook chapters. On the other hand textbooks are more like comprehensive references - reading a textbook through and doing all the problems will make you an expert at the material, but it's not as time-efficient (or interesting) as a course.

3. There are benefits to diving very deeply into a topic, but IMO one's mathematical experience is much richer if there's more consideration for breadth, especially when you're starting out. A student learning basic real analysis would benefit from understanding some point-set topology (not just the metric topology that usually begins these courses) and seeing how (some of the) pathologies of topological spaces disappear when you impose a metric and then you get things like being Hausdorff or having many different definitions of compactness coincide. After learning real and complex, of course one could move onto differential equations, but there are so many other ways to branch out, like exploring differential topology or learning about measures & other forms of integration, which also meshes very nicely with statistics. Exploring different branches emphasizes that there are so many directions you can go with math, even when you're just starting out, and gives you a better feel about how "math" is done, as opposed to just the techniques for a specific topic.

This is my first comment on HN, so please let me know how I can improve this comment!