Bro I know this feel. Even books teaching algorithms being written by mathematicians are error everywhere.
They never state the type, class, no comment, no explanation, read exceed the last index... This list can go endlessly. When they say "lets declare an empty set for variable T", you don't know whether the thing is a list, set, tuple, ndarray, placeholder for a scalar, or a graph.
Some even provide actual code, however, never actually run the code to verify their correctness.
Try this guy then, he's got a PhD in mathematics from the California Institute of Technology from a thesis Finite Semifields and Projective Planes but he's written a bunch of stuff on algorithms and will write you a check for any errors you find in his work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth
Church organist actually - serious enough to have a two story pipe organ built into his own home.
Enough of the True Scotsman .. it's clear as day from the introduction and opening chapters of TAOCP that he approaches programming as a mathematician.
They never state the type, class, no comment, no explanation, read exceed the last index... This list can go endlessly. When they say "lets declare an empty set for variable T", you don't know whether the thing is a list, set, tuple, ndarray, placeholder for a scalar, or a graph.
Some even provide actual code, however, never actually run the code to verify their correctness.