To be clear, it got the first question right for the wrong reasons, and the second question wrong for the wrong reasons. Its math is nonsense and doesn't resemb

To be clear, it got the first question right for the wrong reasons, and the second question wrong for the wrong reasons. Its math is nonsense and doesn't resemble linear algebra at all. I would guess it's just saying "yes" without understanding and then regurgitates some stuff that resembles math, but is not recognizable linear algebra. I've relied on GPT4 a lot while learning math, it has been very precise and has not lead me astray. I do use a text book as well. I shared my story about it being wrong, but it was wrong in a very open minded manner. It knew C(A) = C(AA^T) might be true for special cases, but it couldn't see that it was true for all cases until I explained the proof. Even when wrong it still made compelling arguments that made sense. (Of course, arguments that are wrong but make sense are the most dangerous kind.) GPT4 is still state-of-the-art. Claude has a ways to go.