[tluyben2]

I guess if you are not very sure that 0.13% false positives is correct then these are going to make things worse rather than better as people will be accused of cheating.

Example;

“If we work in a particular matrix basis, then the equation determines the eigenvectors of H. One puts in a particular value of the energy E, and looks for the ket-vector Ej> that solves the equation. It is also an equation that determines the eigenvalues E. If you put in an arbitrary value of E, in general there will not be a solution for the eigenvector. Let's take a very simple example: Suppose the Hamiltonian is the matrix ho.. Since , has only two eigenvalues, namely +1, the Hamiltonian also has only two eigenvalues, + hw. If you put any other value on the right hand side of Eq. 4.28, there will not be a solution. Because the operator H represents energy, we often call E, the energy eigenvalues and |E> the energy eigenvectors of the system.”

You say 96% AI; it’s definitely not; it’s from “ Quantum Mechanics: The Theoretical Minimum” by Friedman and Susskind.

Worse even;

“If we have some indications that classical wave theory is macroscopically correct. it is nevertheless clear that on the microscopic scale only the corpuscular theory of light is able to account for typical absorption and scattering phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect, respectively. One must still ascertain how the photon hypothesis may be reconciled with the essential wave-like phenomena of interference and diffraction.”

Hits 99.9% while it is from Messiah, written 60 years or so ago.