Then I would be doubly surprised -- perhaps you did not notice the lack of coverage of certain important OR areas like (mixed-) integer programming and the many advances therein? Or in nonlinear optimization, interior point methods? Active-sets? SSOCs? Constraint qualifications? Also pretty thin on theory of statistics, queuing theory, combinatorics, etc.
These are all fundamental OR topics but the book makes different choices on topics to cover. (to be fair, the book does not claim to target OR, so I'm not disagreeing with the book's premise, only yours).
I do think though that the book could benefit from feedback from specialists in each individual area. In some areas, I find the selection of topics to be a little bit "unconventional".
You are not disagreeing with what I stated. I said that the book was close to the math of OR (operations research), that is, much of the book is a subset of the math of OR. You outlined some major OR omissions in the book -- I agree fully. So, you are saying that the book does not cover OR, that its OR material is a proper subset of OR. Fine. I agree.
I thought his linear programming coverage was superficial. In particular, I didn't notice any coverage of linear programming for the problem of least cost flows on a network where each arc has a maximum capacity. The nice anti-cycling rule for the version of the simplex algorithm, with strongly feasible bases, is from W. Cunningham, long Chair at the Waterloo Department of Combinatorics and Optimization. It turns out that that algorithm makes a nice dent in the challenges of linear integer programming.
Yes, I saw not much on constraint qualifications. I'm the guy who showed that the Zangwill and Kuhn-Tucker constraint qualifications are independent for problems with only functional constraints -- my work also solved a problem stated but not solved in the famous Arrow, Hurwicz, Uzawa paper on constraint qualifications in mathematical economics.
Any really good book on linear programming is "close" to OR but can be attacked with your objection that it omits lots of OR.
These are all fundamental OR topics but the book makes different choices on topics to cover. (to be fair, the book does not claim to target OR, so I'm not disagreeing with the book's premise, only yours).
I do think though that the book could benefit from feedback from specialists in each individual area. In some areas, I find the selection of topics to be a little bit "unconventional".