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.
// 优化逻辑：栈空且当前数为0 → 跳过（避免存储无效前导零）
，推荐阅读Line官方版本下载获取更多信息
В фигурном катании захотели запретить критику судейМеждународный союз конькобежцев хочет запретить критику судей в фигурном катании
Do you know you can wildcard parts of selectors?
An accountant won a big jackpot on Kalshi by betting against DOGE