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，详情可参考雷电模拟器官方版本下载
，推荐阅读服务器推荐获取更多信息
流亡的柔软：日记中的父亲，比导演更真实
«Я вырвала сына из пасти леопарда»Дикие звери приходят в индийскую деревню и калечат людей. Даже дети берут в руки топоры13 января 2021，更多细节参见safew官方版本下载