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.
Москвичей предупредили о резком похолодании09:45
，推荐阅读旺商聊官方下载获取更多信息
[&:first-child]:overflow-hidden [&:first-child]:max-h-full"。业内人士推荐搜狗输入法2026作为进阶阅读
3014251410http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/pc/content/202602/27/content_30142514.htmlhttp://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/pad/content/202602/27/content_30142514.html11921 让创新药离患者更近（实干显担当 同心启新程·代表委员履职故事）
第六十六条 违反本法规定，构成违反治安管理行为的，由公安机关依法给予治安管理处罚；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。