And if you ask the average person in the street they wouldn't be able to answer any of these either.

I feel like this has covered 100 times artificial intelligence doesn't necessarily mean superhuman intelligence.

People answer things wrong all the time. Showing an intelligence gets something wrong doesn't mean it's not an intelligence.

Seems like you are moving the goalpost (i.e., don't expect it to derive a theorem given a set of definitions and axioms from a non-widespread field). It should, in fact, derive any formula given a set of axioms and definitions, but we can't be sure whether randomness fooled us (again). If an LLM can indeed derive any theorem given axioms/definitions, even if we make up a field, then at this point it might not matter:

Ignorance is bliss.

are we discussing here "intelligence" or high IQ? those problems sit on high IQ level for humans, and are not a good fit for testing intelligence in general. if one claims that passing those tests is a requirement for intelligence, are they saying that humans with IQ 80 are not intelligent?