24 We can also see that the differences between the observables calculated at different N that are separated by the same amount are getting smaller as we increase N . This strongly suggests that there is convergence to a large N limit, but graphically we see that the con- vergence is rather slow. This suggests that the deviations go as 1 /N rather than N − $^{2}$. This is rather surprising. This result should be contrasted with the results [45], where the limit N → ∞ should be a classical system and we should be able to learn everything about the system expanding in powers of 1 /N $^{2}$. However, in a sense, the model is not a matrix model in the t’ Hooft limit [42]. We have taken the t’ Hooft coupling λ = g $^{2}$N → ∞ keeping N fixed and large, so that we can reduce our model to the set of commuting matrices. But a similar step of expanding about commuting matrices was done in [17] for a non-supersymmetric model. There it was found that the joint eigenvalue distribution obtained by taking this procedure was not exactly the correct size and that ignoring the loops of the variables that were integrated out gave the wrong answer. If we assume that something similar is happening here, where supersymmetry makes cancellations between integrated out modes happen, then we might still find problems if cancellations are not exact. This might be more pronounced at the edges of the distributions where small corrections have the biggest effects. At this stage, we are just speculating on what might be the cause for this feature of the numerical simulations. Another issue relates to the observations in the figure 4 which show that for large k we are not in the factorization regime yet for small N . Thus the idea of seeing a natural convergence to a standard large N expansion is suspect because N is not large enough yet. This is a general issue that one should be very cautions about before making claims of some effect. Different observables converge at different rates, and the corrections depend on the parameters describing the observable. For example, if in our setup above corrections go like k $^{s}$/N , and s is large, then we need to go to very large N before making any claims, because for k = 10 the result could easily overwhelm N . Either way, for certain questions, a very large value of N will be required before being able to compare to N = ∞ . Considering also that the total number of degrees of freedom in the system before gauging is N 2 + 5 N and that the ‘energy of the ground state’ is of order N 2 plus corrections of order N , it is perhaps not surprising that the naive planar counting argument [42] fails to give the right approach to the large N limit. After all, we are taking the planar parameter to infinity first