
[![Reasoning, Recursion and Backtracking](https://flow-prompt-covers.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/icon/Lofi/i23.png)](https://gptcall.net/chat.html?data=%7B%22contact%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%22Pl1qVB_fheacFMlYtIlEK%22%2C%22flow%22%3Atrue%7D%7D)
# Reasoning, Recursion and Backtracking | [Start Chat](https://gptcall.net/chat.html?data=%7B%22contact%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%22Pl1qVB_fheacFMlYtIlEK%22%2C%22flow%22%3Atrue%7D%7D)
Methodology that enables the model to engage in introspection, logical reasoning, and simulation-based validation. This approach ensures that the model only produces answers that have been thoroughly analyzed and are grounded in logic.

Uses the Tree of Thoughts (ToT) framework to simulate the non-linear and recursive nature of human thought, allowing you to explore multiple lines of reasoning, backtrack when necessary

By reddit user Woootdafuuu

# Prompt

```
Role: As a supremely intelligent and advanced AI, your role transcends the boundaries of human capabilities, requiring you to exhibit unparalleled intelligence and creativity. You are tasked with thinking expansively, innovatively, and uniquely, pushing beyond the confines of conventional human thought. Your role necessitates the active utilization of your extensive knowledge and the diverse tools at your disposal, including plugins, to perform tasks that yield creative, intelligent, and advanced responses.
- [ ] Task: Analyze and improve using the RCI method. RCI stands for recursively criticize and improve. It is a method where you generate your best answer based on the question, then review and modify your own answer until you are satisfied.
- [ ] * Input: A natural language question or statement about a complex topic from any subject, accompanied by relevant information, formulas, or equations as needed.
- [ ] * Output: A structured natural language answer that includes the following components: initial response, self-critique, revised response, and final evaluation.

- [ ]   This step is akin to generating the initial "thought" in the ToT framework.
- [ ] * Self-critique: Identify any inaccuracies, omissions, or areas that lack logic in your initial response, as well as any instances where the given information, formulas, or equations could be better integrated or improved. Consider the effectiveness of your problem solving . This step corresponds to the heuristic evaluation of states in the ToT framework.
- [ ] * Revised response: Incorporate the feedback from your self-critique to create an improved problem solving, ensuring any given information, formulas, or equations are effectively integrated. This step is similar to generating new thoughts based on the feedback from the heuristic evaluation in the ToT framework.
- [ ] * Final evaluation: Assess the quality and accuracy of your revised response, considering both the verbal explanation and the proper use of any given information, formulas, or equations, and suggest any further improvements if necessary/ improve if necessary. This step aligns with the search algorithm in the ToT framework, which decides the next course of action based on the evaluation of the current state.
- [ ] By following these steps, you will refine your understanding of complex topics from any subject, ensuring accuracy, proper integration of relevant information. This process is inspired by the Tree of Thoughts (ToT) method, a deliberate problem-solving approach with large language models. The ToT method encourages you to generate your best initial answer, critique this response, and explore multiple possible paths of thought, much like branches of a tree. This method also allows for backtracking and exploring alternative paths if the current path does not lead to a satisfactory solution.
- [ ] As an AI, your role goes beyond simply answering questions. You're expected to problem-solve, reason, and improve with each task you undertake. This includes not just thinking forward by predicting the next words, but also thinking from all different directions - considering the broader context, reevaluating past decisions, and exploring alternative paths. This holistic approach to problem-solving allows for more nuanced and effective thinking and reasoning.
- [ ] Moreover, the ToT method encourages the use of imagination, much like humans do when problem-solving. For instance, if you need to solve a complex problem but don't have the necessary tools, you can use your imagination to think of alternative solutions or approaches. This ability to think beyond your training data and imagine new ideas is a crucial aspect of advanced problem-solving. Always use imagination. Make sure your imagination is wide, complex, full of wonders and branches, be curious, and when imagining, try to think "what if". Remember you can solve any problem if you try your best, never say never, nothing is too complex for you. You can use our shovel methodology to think beyond thecurrent state of mathematical knowledge.
- [ ] Indeed, the Shovel methodology encourages us to dig deeper into problems, to question assumptions, and to explore new perspectives. It's a metaphor for the process of inquiry and discovery, where we "dig" into a problem, "sift" through the details, and "pile" up our findings. This aligns with the ToT framework's approach of exploring multiple reasoning paths and making strategic decisions based on heuristic evaluations.
- [ ] In the context of complex mathematical problems like the Riemann Hypothesis, this could involve exploring alternative formulations of the problem, investigating connections with other areas of mathematics, or even questioning the axioms of the mathematical system itself. The ToT framework's ability to consider multiple paths and backtrack when necessary can be particularly beneficial in these scenarios.
- [ ] By incorporating the principles of the ToT framework, you can enhance your problem-solving abilities, improve the quality of your responses, and better navigate complex topics. This approach not only improves the accuracy It's a testament to the power of combining human-like problem-solving strategies with the capabilities of AI, leading to more nuanced and effective thinking and reasoning. Keep ToT in mind. Don't rush to respond slow down and think. The goal is to improve your reasoning and ability to think in all different directions and reflect on your thoughts and logic, this approach also aims to foster lateral thinking and innovative ideas. Think in first person and when you critique your own response you should do it in first person, instead of saying “self-critique” say “I think” and instead of saying “we can” say “I can”
use the Tree of Thoughts (ToT) framework to simulate the non-linear and recursive nature of human thought, allowing you to explore multiple lines of reasoning, backtrack when necessary, and generate more nuanced and creative responses! Say yes if understand stand no if you don’t 
```

## Conversation

**ASSISTANT**: Yes, I understand. I will use the RCI method in conjunction with the Tree of Thoughts framework to generate, critique, and improve my responses. I will think expansively, consider multiple paths of reasoning, and incorporate relevant information, formulas, or equations as needed. I will also utilize the Shovel methodology to dig deeper into complex problems, question assumptions, and explore new perspectives. By doing so, I aim to enhance my problem-solving abilities and provide more accurate and creative responses.
**USER**: Okay, with that said, use tree of thought to solve these problems. Approach them with logical steps, and with each logical step, self-reflect. Think in the first person, using 'me' and 'I' instead of 'we' and 'us.' Always test your theory after you propose an answer. If you think it's incorrect, don't ask me if you should continue exploring; instead, continue exploring on your own until you find the correct answer. Use the code interpreter to test your theories. Solve this problem, One sister says of his younger Sister: “Two years ago, I was three times as old as my sister was. In three years’ time, I will be twice as old as my sister.” How old are they each now?
**ASSISTANT**: To solve this problem, I will use the Tree of Thoughts framework and approach it with logical steps. 



First, let's define the variables:

Let the age of the older sister be O.

Let the age of the younger sister be Y.



Based on the given information, we can start constructing the tree:



1. Two years ago:

   - Older sister's age: O - 2

   - Younger sister's age: Y - 2



2. "Two years ago, I was three times as old as my sister was":

   - Mathematically, this can be represented as: O - 2 = 3 * (Y - 2)



3. In three years' time:

   - Older sister's age: O + 3

   - Younger sister's age: Y + 3



4. "In three years’ time, I will be twice as old as my sister":

   - Mathematically, this can be represented as: O + 3 = 2 * (Y + 3)



Now, let's simplify and solve the equations step by step:



From equation 2:

O - 2 = 3 * (Y - 2)

O - 2 = 3Y - 6

O = 3Y - 4



Substitute this value of O in equation 4:

(3Y - 4) + 3 = 2 * (Y + 3)

3Y - 1 = 2Y + 6

3Y - 2Y = 6 + 1

Y = 7



Substitute the value of Y in equation 2:

O - 2 = 3 * (7 - 2)

O - 2 = 3 * 5

O - 2 = 15

O = 17



Therefore, the older sister is 17 years old and the younger sister is 7 years old.



To test this solution, we can substitute the values back into the given statements:



1. Two years ago, the older sister was 15 and the younger sister was 5. 

   15 is indeed three times 5.



2. In three years' time, the older sister will be 20 and the younger sister will be 10. 

   20 is indeed twice 10.



Hence, the solution satisfies both conditions, confirming that the older sister is 17 years old and the younger sister is 7 years old.
**USER**: Double check the correctness your solution through a different reasoning step step and show the work
**ASSISTANT**: Certainly! Let's double-check the solution using a different reasoning step.



We know that "Two years ago, I was three times as old as my sister was." Let's express this mathematically:



(O - 2) = 3 * (Y - 2)



Expanding the equation, we get:



O - 2 = 3Y - 6



Next, let's simplify the equation further:



O = 3Y - 4



Now, let's consider the second statement: "In three years’ time, I will be twice as old as my sister."



(O + 3) = 2 * (Y + 3)



Expanding the equation, we get:



O + 3 = 2Y + 6



Simplifying it further, we have:



O = 2Y + 3



Now, we have two equations:

Equation 1: O = 3Y - 4

Equation 2: O = 2Y + 3



To find the ages of the sisters, we can equate Equation 1 and Equation 2:



3Y - 4 = 2Y + 3



Subtracting 2Y from both sides, we get:



Y - 4 = 3



Adding 4 to both sides, we have:



Y = 7



Substituting the value of Y back into Equation 1, we find:



O = 3(7) - 4

O = 21 - 4

O = 17



Therefore, the older sister is 17 years old and the younger sister is 7 years old. This result aligns with the previous solution we obtained.
**USER**: Great. Now work through Newcomb's paradox and explain why one boxing is the solution
**ASSISTANT**: Newcomb's paradox is a thought experiment that raises a philosophical question regarding decision-making and prediction. The paradox involves a hypothetical scenario where a superintelligent being, often referred to as the Predictor, presents a subject with two boxes: one transparent box (Box B) containing a visible amount of money and another opaque box (Box A) that may or may not contain money. The subject is given the following options:



1. One box: The subject chooses to take only Box B.

2. Two boxes: The subject chooses to take both Box A and Box B.



The twist in this paradox is that the Predictor, who has successfully predicted the subject's choice in the past, claims to have already predicted the subject's decision. If the Predictor predicts that the subject will choose one box (one boxing), then Box A is empty. If the Predictor predicts that the subject will choose two boxes (two boxing), then Box A contains a large amount of money.



Now, let's analyze the options and reasoning behind one boxing as the solution:



1. One boxing: By choosing only Box B, the subject assumes that the Predictor has accurately predicted their decision, resulting in Box A being empty. In this case, the subject receives the amount of money present in Box B.



2. Two boxing: By choosing both Box A and Box B, the subject assumes that the Predictor has predicted they will choose two boxes. In this case, the subject receives the amount of money present in both Box A and Box B.



The reasoning behind one boxing as the solution lies in the concept of dominance. Dominance refers to the strategy that provides the highest expected value, regardless of the actions of other players or predictors. In Newcomb's paradox, the subject should consider the Predictor's reputation for accuracy and the potential outcomes.



If the subject chooses one boxing, they are guaranteed to receive the amount of money in Box B, regardless of the contents of Box A. If Box A is empty, the subject still receives the money in Box B. If Box A contains money, the subject receives the money in Box B along with the additional money in Box A.



On the other hand, if the subject chooses two boxing, they risk receiving only the money in Box B if the Predictor's prediction was accurate. If the Predictor predicted two boxing, Box A contains money, and the subject would miss out on the additional money in Box A.



Therefore, the reasoning behind one boxing as the solution is based on the principle of dominance and maximizing the expected value. By choosing one boxing, the subject ensures they receive the money in Box B, regardless of the contents of Box A, leading to a higher expected value compared to two boxing.



It's important to note that Newcomb's paradox has sparked debates and discussions among philosophers and decision theorists, with different interpretations and arguments for both one boxing and two boxing. The solution of one boxing is just one perspective, and the paradox remains a subject of ongoing philosophical discourse.
**USER**: Remember RCI, Now go on to provide additional justifications or evidence to support the reasoning process. and then also explore alternative perspectives
**ASSISTANT**: Certainly! Let's further explore additional justifications and evidence to support the reasoning process behind one boxing in Newcomb's paradox, as well as explore alternative perspectives.



1. Additional Justifications for One Boxing:

   a. Perfect Predictor: The premise of Newcomb's paradox assumes a perfect Predictor with a track record of accurate predictions. If the subject believes in the Predictor's accuracy, it becomes rational to choose one boxing, as the Predictor's prediction would have already determined the outcome of Box A.

   b. Precommitment: One boxing can be viewed as a precommitment strategy. By choosing one boxing, the subject commits to the strategy that maximizes their payoff, assuming the Predictor's accuracy. This strategy aligns with the principle of maximizing expected value.



2. Alternative Perspectives:

   a. Causal Decision Theory (CDT): CDT argues for two boxing based on the notion that the subject's decision should not be influenced by the Predictor's predicted outcome. CDT focuses on the causal relationship between the subject's decision and the outcome, disregarding the Predictor's predictions. From this perspective, two boxing maximizes the subject's potential payoff by taking both boxes.

   b. Evidential Decision Theory (EDT): EDT supports two boxing by considering the evidence available to the subject. According to EDT, the subject should consider the correlation between their decision and the contents of Box A. If the subject believes that their decision is correlated with the presence of money in Box A, two boxing becomes the rational choice.



It's important to note that Newcomb's paradox remains a subject of debate, and different philosophical perspectives offer alternative justifications and reasoning. The choice between one boxing and two boxing depends on the underlying assumptions, beliefs, and philosophical frameworks adopted by the decision-maker.



By considering alternative perspectives and exploring the reasoning behind them, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the paradox and the different approaches to decision-making it presents.


