I don't think that phrase is a thing in linear algebra.

I've gotten a PhD in mathematics - I know both these fields quite well. I stand by my assessment of linear algebra - I've been using pieces form it nearly daily for decades.

>Anyone familiar with those basic principles can pick up a new distribution quite easily – and can probably derive new distributions when they're needed.

And a student trying to learn where and why stats is useful should be taught a wide set of distributions so they see the nuances while they're learning. Sure, you can provide only a Gaussian, but when the student leaves completely ignorant of all the places a gaussian fails and what are some choices relevant to different situations, you can failed to teach them the fundamentals, which includes enough nuance to see when and where to apply what distribution.

>A list of distributions is not fundamental to statistics.

You may as well claim all of stats is not fundamental - just learn math principles. You can look up anything in stats and derive it yourself once given the concept if you're good at math fundamentals. Surely with enough math skills, and zero stats, you can derive all the stats knowledge needed without needing to ever see any stats in a book.

But that's a bad way to go about teaching people useful skills.

A student learning about distributions needs some examples. This book has none. You can argue all you want, but this book is crap for learning the topics the OP claimed it covers.

Find a textbook for beginning students that does not cover a multitude of distributions. Either every single author, usually writing from decades of experience, is wrong, or you are.

I think the authors have the right approach.