o1 thought for 105 seconds, cycling through many relevant-sounding status messages like "looking for patterns," before writing a collection of thematic but flawed thoughts. The "Calculation Steps" approach is incorrect, but correctly implemented by the code.
It flubs a basic calculation that it correctly implements in python:
"10^16 mod (10^9 + 7) = 49" (it's actually 930000007)
but succeeds in a seemingly harder calculation:
"the modular inverse of 12 modulo 10^9 + 7 is 83333334"
Finally, o1 claims the code prints "0" when it actually prints "982790507" (both wrong answers).
Note: input was copied from the html-only Project Euler url since the formulas in the human-optimized url are not copyable: https://projecteuler.net/minimal=912
"Is progress in SAT solving the sole result of hardware advancement? Time Leap Challenge compared 20-year-old SAT solvers on new computer hardware and modern SAT solvers on 20-year-old computer hardware. Although hardware improvements make old solvers faster, algorithmic progress dominates and drives today's SAT solving."*
Pretty cool given computing progress over the last 20 years:
1. CPUs sped up 40-60x
2. GPU FLOPS/$ increased ~10,000x
o1 thought for 105 seconds, cycling through many relevant-sounding status messages like "looking for patterns," before writing a collection of thematic but flawed thoughts. The "Calculation Steps" approach is incorrect, but correctly implemented by the code.
It flubs a basic calculation that it correctly implements in python: "10^16 mod (10^9 + 7) = 49" (it's actually 930000007)
but succeeds in a seemingly harder calculation: "the modular inverse of 12 modulo 10^9 + 7 is 83333334"
Finally, o1 claims the code prints "0" when it actually prints "982790507" (both wrong answers).
Note: input was copied from the html-only Project Euler url since the formulas in the human-optimized url are not copyable: https://projecteuler.net/minimal=912