It's unfortunate that the book doesn't have solutions for practice problems. Which makes it hard to use for self-learning.
There are plenty of ways to get a copy.
Yes, but I think it's important to state that it's only reliable for things that are very well known and extensively written about.
And for the bleeding edge part: My godchild wanted to know the name of a Pokémon from his licensed shirt. One of the first ones, found in every training set. Couldn't get it right, was certain it was the wrong one.
how did you even ask an AI this question? Took a picture of the shirt, uploaded it, and asked the AI what it was? That's a different class of problem than "answer this graph theory question and include your references: <paste text here>"
You don't ask for proofs to print them out, put them in your drawer, and brag around that you own the proofs for these exercises.
You ask Claude for proofs to help your understanding. Understanding is the exact same activity as verifying.
If you use Claude, you can follow and understand its reasoning fully, but the thing you're trying to verify is if that reasoning is itself correct, and consistent with the methods or reasoning you're trying to understand from the textbook.
If you want to rely on Claude to learn things directly without other sources, that's perfectly acceptable, but if you're trying to learn from another source, then it's necessary for that source to convey everything necessary to do so.
(Assuming it's a proof or something - if it's just a number - oh well).
For an LLM, you can ask for a prove that the number is correct. For a textbook, good luck!
(Edit) But I understand that goal of a book can be completely different. So it's just problem of my expectations.
"Probability" by David Morin
"Walk Through Combinatorics, A: An Introduction To Enumeration And Graph Theory" by Miklós Bóna