I wanted to test this claim with SAT problems. Why SAT? Because solving SAT problems require applying very few rules consistently. The principle stays the same even if you have millions of variables or just a couple. So if you know how to reason properly any SAT instances is solvable given enough time. Also, it's easy to generate completely random SAT problems that make it less likely for LLM to solve the problem based on pure pattern recognition. Therefore, I think it is a good problem type to test whether LLMs can generalize basic rules beyond their training data.
:first-child]:h-full [&:first-child]:w-full [&:first-child]:mb-0 [&:first-child]:rounded-[inherit] h-full w-full，详情可参考同城约会
。搜狗输入法下载对此有专业解读
Кадр: @bogdan_mikheev_
Жители Санкт-Петербурга устроили «крысогон»17:52，更多细节参见爱思助手下载最新版本